Public Service Pensions: Indexation and Revaluation 2025

Darren Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Written Statements

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)]

Legislation governing public service pensions in payment requires them to be increased annually by the same percentage as additional pensions (state earnings related pension and state second pension). Public service pensions will therefore be increased from 7 April 2025 by 1.7%, in line with the annual increase in the consumer prices index up to September 2024, except for those public service pensions which have been in payment for less than a year, which will receive a pro rata increase. This will ensure that public service pensions take account of increases in the cost of living and their purchasing power is maintained.

Separately, in the career average revalued earnings public service pension schemes introduced in 2014 and 2015, pensions in accrual are revalued annually in relation to either prices or earnings depending on the terms specified in their scheme regulations. The Public Service Pensions Act 2013 requires the Treasury to specify a measure of prices and of earnings to be used for revaluation by these schemes.

The prices measure is the consumer prices index up to September 2024. Public service schemes which rely on a measure of prices, therefore, will use the figure of 1.7% for the prices element of revaluation.

The earnings measure is the whole economy year-on-year change in average weekly earnings (non-seasonally adjusted and including bonuses and arrears) up to September 2024. Public service schemes which rely on a measure of earnings, therefore, will use the figure of 4.5% for the earnings element of revaluation.

The effective date of revaluation listed in the order is 1 April 2025, but some schemes have chosen to move their effective revaluation date to 6 April 2025 in order to manage interactions with the annual tax allowance.

Revaluation is one part of the amount of pension that members earn in a year and needs to be considered in conjunction with the amount of in-year accrual. Typically, schemes with lower revaluation will have faster accrual and therefore members will earn more pension per year. The following list shows how the main public service schemes will be affected by revaluation:

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Darren Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)]

I beg to move,

That the Charter for Budget Responsibility: Autumn 2024, which was laid before this House on 22 January, be approved.

It feels like I was in the House only a few moments ago, but I am delighted to be back at the Dispatch Box for this important debate. Sustained economic growth, supported by sound investment, is the only route to improving the prosperity of our country, and, in so doing, the living standards of working people. Growth is the primary mission of this Government.

This debate is timely, as the House knows, given that the Chancellor gave her growth speech only this morning. In her speech, she reiterated that without a stable economy, we cannot hope to attract investment into the UK; that we cannot grow our economy with a black hole in our public finances; and, importantly, that fixing the foundations of the economy starts with the new fiscal rules, which we are voting on here today.

The Chancellor announced in her speech that we are taking difficult decisions in the long-term interests of the country, including, for example, on a third runway at Heathrow airport. As she set out, the Government support and are inviting proposals for a third runway at Heathrow to be brought forward by the summer. Once proposals have been received, we will take forward a full assessment through the airport national policy statement, to ensure that any scheme is delivered in line with our legal, environmental and climate obligations. According to a recent study from Frontier Economics, a third runway could increase GDP by 4.3% over the next 25 years. It is estimated that over half—around 60%—of that boost would go to areas outside London and the south-east, underlining the fact that Heathrow as a hub airport brings prosperity not just to London but to every region and nation of the country.

The Government have also set out further plans to reform our planning system, to provide confidence to investors and builders, and to show that Britain can get building again and that we can deliver on our promises. Confidence starts with stability. Stability is the precondition to a healthy, growing economy, because it gives UK businesses and households the essential confidence that they need to spend and invest, encouraging innovation and boosting our economy. In outlining our new, robust and transparent fiscal framework, the charter for Budget responsibility that we are voting on today provides a vital and stable foundation from which our economy can grow.

What the instability of the last 14 years has given us is clear: low productivity, rising debt levels and declining public services performance. Public sector net debt is 97.2% of GDP, and net financial debt remains close to its highest recorded level as a share of GDP, which was reached in the pandemic. Per capita GDP remains 0.8% below pre-pandemic levels. In contrast, had the UK economy grown at the average rate of OECD economies over the past 14 years, it would be over £150 billion larger than it is today. Public investment in the UK has historically been low and inconsistent. Our public capital stock, as a share of GDP, is the joint lowest in the G7, and more than 10 percentage points below the G7 median.

Underneath all those challenges was a £22 billion black hole of in-year spending pressures that were not disclosed by the previous Government to Parliament, the public or the Office for Budget Responsibility—[Interruption.] My colleague the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), seems to have comments on the £22 billion black hole. I will happily take an intervention from him. [Interruption.] I am told that I cannot take an intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is very sad. But in that context, I look forward to the shadow Chief Secretary outlining in his speech how that £22 billion black hole came into being.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

For the record, the Minister can take an intervention if he wishes to. This reminds me of the many years all three of us spent on the Business and Trade Committee, when we could not agree on anything either.

[Darren Jones]

I was always enamoured of your arguments, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I continue to be today. I look forward to the prospect of many interventions from Members across the House as part of this important debate, and I encourage the shadow Chief Secretary to intervene.

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene. Can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirm whether the OBR validated his £22 billion claim?

[Darren Jones]

The OBR was very clear, as Members will see in its publications in the House of Commons Library, that the spending plans announced by the previous Government were—to quote the chair of the OBR in his evidence to the Treasury Committee—a “fiction.” The OBR forecast provided to the Government made it clear that had the in-year spending pressure been reported transparently, the last forecast under the previous Administration would have been “materially different”. That shows that the lack of transparency on in-year spending was a secret held by only a few Ministers in the last Government, and neither the public, Parliament, we in opposition nor the OBR knew about that problem. That is why this Government have already legislated to bring forward additional strengthened powers for independent checks and balances and transparency, and we have committed to sharing in-year spending pressures with the Office for Budget Responsibility so that we never end up in a situation like the one we inherited.

The Chancellor’s autumn Budget put the public finances back on track, and we will keep them there. Our commitment to sound public finances is non-negotiable. Our new charter for Budget responsibility, underpinned by the new fiscal rules, ensures a more transparent fiscal framework and provides a stable foundation for growth. Today I will outline the changes that we have made to the charter for Budget responsibility, as published in draft at the autumn Budget 2024 and laid before this House last week.

Fiscal rules are a key part of the UK fiscal framework. At the autumn Budget in 2024, the Chancellor confirmed the Government’s fiscal rules as set out in our manifesto, which will play a vital role in unlocking investment. These rules will put the public finances on a sustainable path and prioritise investment to support long-term growth. They consist of two rules: the stability rule and the investment rule.

The stability rule aims to move the current Budget into balance so that day-to-day spending is met by revenues, meaning that the Government will borrow only for investment. We will meet this rule in 2029-30, until that becomes the third year of the forecast. From that point on, we will balance the current Budget in the third year of every Budget, held annually each autumn. This will provide a tougher constraint on day-to-day spending so that difficult decisions cannot be constantly delayed or deferred, as they were under the last Government.

I am sure the House would recommend that the Government should live within their means. That means that public services have to be able to live within their budgets, and it means that tax revenues have to pay for day-to-day spending. Never again will we end up in the position the country ended up in under the last Government, when every week and every month the country borrowed more and more in order to pay the day-to-day bills. That is why when hon. Members on the Opposition Benches complain about the debt burden this country is having to deal with, they should look in the mirror, because they built up that debt burden. The people responsible for filling up the country’s credit card just to pay the bills every month, even in advance of the pandemic, were Conservative Ministers. That will never happen under a Labour Government because of our clear fiscal rules. It is why for the first time in 17 years we are doing a zero-based review of all public spending, not once done under the last Administration but done in the first spending review of this Labour Government.

Secondly, our investment rule requires the Government to reduce net financial debt, defined as public sector net financial liabilities, as a share of the economy. Public sector net financial liabilities is an accredited official statistic, produced by the Office for National Statistics since 2016; based on international statistical guidance, it has been forecast by the OBR since that time. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has noted that the metric offers a

“more complete picture of the Government’s financial position, while removing some of the perverse incentives associated with a narrow focus on PSND”—

public sector net debt.

This rule keeps debt on a sustainable path while allowing the step change needed in investment by targeting a measure of debt that captures not just the debt that Government owe, but financial assets that are expected to generate future returns. By targeting net financial debt for the investment rule, the Government are prioritising investment to drive long-term growth while getting debt falling as a share of the economy.

The move to net financial debt will be supported by a comprehensive set of guardrails to give confidence that there are rules around the investments the country can make. Like our stability rule, our investment rule will apply in 2029-30 until that year becomes the third year of the forecast, and from that point onwards net financial debt will fall in the third year of every forecast.

The move to net financial debt means that at the autumn Budget the Government were in a position to confirm public investment that will be £100 billion higher over the forecast period compared to the previous Government’s plans. I am pleased to say that in its autumn forecast the OBR confirmed that the Government are on track to meet both fiscal rules two years early, in 2027-28, displaying the Government’s commitment to sound finances.

The Chancellor has asked the OBR to produce a forecast on 26 March, which will assess us against these rules once again. Our commitment to these fiscal rules is iron-clad. The UK has changed its fiscal rules in the past more than any other country, but this Government know that stability matters. That is why the new charter sets out clearer circumstances under which the fiscal rules can temporarily be suspended through a new strengthened escape clause. The new escape clause requires a decision on suspension be supported by the OBR’s analysis so that the rules can be suspended only with sufficient justification.

As well as new fiscal rules, the updated charter for budget responsibility includes a set of wider reforms that ensure a more stable and transparent fiscal framework. Because fiscal responsibility is so central to this Government’s mission, the first piece of legislation passed in this Parliament was the Budget Responsibility act 2024. It delivered our manifesto commitment to introduce a fiscal lock. I do not think Members on either side of the House need reminding of what happens when huge unfunded fiscal commitments are made without proper scrutiny and key economic institutions such as the OBR are sidelined. We will not let that happen again. The fiscal lock therefore guarantees in law that from now on every fiscally significant change to tax and spending will be subject to scrutiny by the independent OBR.

The charter sets out the details of how the fiscal lock will operate. As well as the new guiding fiscal principles to move towards only borrowing for investment and to keep debt on a sustainable path, the OBR will monitor progress against a dashboard of key debt sustainability metrics to ensure the Government are taking a broad view of fiscal sustainability. A broader view will allow the Government to form a full assessment of the sustainability of the public finances and support us in seeking to improve sustainability over time.

We are also enhancing fiscal and economic stability by confirming in the charter today that the Government’s intention to move to one major fiscal event per year will be honoured, giving families and businesses certainty on tax and spending plans, as will the requirement on the Treasury to conduct regular spending reviews every two years and setting spending for at least three years, ensuring public services have certainty on their funding and that spending decisions cannot again be repeatedly delayed. In addition, it guarantees a three-year rolling budget for the OBR, to support its independence. We are further strengthening fiscal transparency and accountability by accepting all the recommendations of the OBR review of the March 2024 forecast for departmental expenditure limits, including to improve the spending information the Treasury shares with the OBR.

The OBR is widely recognised as providing independent, credible and high-quality analysis. It is a guarantor of economic stability. Going forward, the Treasury will provide the OBR with information on the in-year position, allowing it to forecast underspending and overspending against departmental expenditure limits where appropriate. This will ensure the unfunded pressures identified at the public spending audit never happen again. We are a Government who will consider the impact of our current spending decisions on future generations, and to show how the long-term health of the public balance sheet is bolstered by sound investments, the charter requires the OBR to report on the long-term impact of capital investment and other policies at fiscal events.

Finally, I turn to the welfare cap, which we are also debating today. The Government are retaining the welfare cap within our fiscal framework to support our ambitions to keep welfare spending sustainable in the medium term. The OBR will assess whether the new cap has been met at the first fiscal event of the next Parliament. The latest OBR forecast judged the previous welfare cap to be breached by £8.6 billion, following a trend of forecast breaches by the previous Government. This is clearly an unsustainable path for welfare spending. This breach underlines the inheritance left by the previous Government: a failure to control welfare spending and to bring forward radical reform, and, crucially, a failure by the last Government to support people to get the treatment or skills they need to return to work.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

In his assessment, what estimate has the Minister made of the increase in poverty and child poverty in our society and the effects of largely uncontrolled rents in the private rented sector, often well above the local housing allowance, which leads people into poverty?

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Member knows that the Labour party takes child poverty seriously. That is why we launched the child poverty taskforce at the start of this Government, co-chaired by the Work and Pensions Secretary and the Education Secretary, to do a root and branch review of the long-term structural causes of child poverty and the interventions the Government could take to reverse those growing trends that none of us across the House wants to see. The taskforce will report in the coming months, but he is right to point out that housing costs and insecure housing have become ever more important drivers of child poverty in recent years. That is why, through the Renters’ Rights Bill introduced to the House by the Deputy Prime Minister, we are taking action in the private rented sector to provide additional protections and support for families in rental accommodation—for example, banning no-fault evictions and giving more security of tenure for people who are renting.

Like me, the right hon. Member will have had lots of casework where hard-working families, who are just trying to make ends meet and to provide security of income and a roof over their head for them and their families, are failed by a market in which house prices to buy and rent are out of reach and the rate at which we build affordable and social housing is not meeting the demand of the people who need it. That is why we increased funding at the Budget by half a billion pounds to build more affordable and social housing, which we know can be delivered quickly.

On a visit last week to Erewash, I visited social housing developments supported by Homes England and learned from the company building those homes for emh Homes, the east midlands housing association, that it takes only 14 to 16 weeks from laying the foundations through to giving the key to the person moving in. That reminds us why our reform agenda is so important, because the time involved in building—planning, consenting, infrastructure and financing deals—has been significantly holding back the rate of development of social and affordable housing across the country. Those are exactly the sorts of issues where Government have the ability to make a difference, which is why we are committed to accelerating our plans to build 1.5 million homes a year, but, crucially, to tilting that towards more affordable and social housing to support people across the country.

The Government are resetting the welfare cap, given that the previous one was repeatedly breached, and we are doing so based on the latest Office for Budget Responsibility forecast. That will set a new target for 2029-30, alongside our action to control welfare spending and to help people who deserve the assistance. The Government have demonstrated that they will not shy away from doing what is needed to put welfare spending on a more sustainable path—for example, with different decisions such as targeting winter fuel payments to those who need them the most and reclaiming £4.3 billion of public money lost to fraud and error in the welfare system in 2029-30, and £9.2 billion over five years.

We have also announced steps to tackle inactivity through the “Get Britain Working” White Paper and will set out further proposals in the health and disability Green Paper later in spring. Progress against the cap will be monitored by the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions. That will include a strengthened accountability framework and the DWP publishing an annual report on welfare spending. By strengthening the accountability of the welfare cap, getting more people into work and reforming the welfare system for long-term sustainability, we are taking the necessary steps to keep spending under control. But crucially, we are also serving the people of this country by ensuring that people who for too long have been at home unable to be seen in the NHS or to get access to mental health services, who have been unable to get the training or support they need to take advantage of the jobs available in our country, and who have been unable to find jobs near where they are, see hope in their futures and know they have a Government on their side who will support them to get back into work. That outcome is better for them, their family finances and their futures, but it also supports us in ensuring fiscal stability.

The reforms to the fiscal framework outlined in the new charter for Budget responsibility will ensure a more stable approach to tax and spend, as well as better transparency and accountability for our Government and future Governments. That stability is inseparable from our plans for growth. Alongside that growth, restoring stability means the Government can pay for increased funding to repair, reform and modernise our public services and to invest in the infrastructure needed to rebuild Britain. For those reasons, I commend the motion to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

To clear up any confusion, this is the debate and motion on the charter for Budget responsibility. The next motion and debate will be on the welfare cap. I call the shadow Minister.

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

As the Chancellor scours the nation turning over every stone in her desperate effort to mitigate the damage from her choices in last year’s Budget of broken promises, it falls to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to keep his face straight as he lectures the House on the importance of fiscal responsibility. He has shown the performative skills of one of the greats of the west end, but his mouthing of the words of economic stewardship, even as his audience of wealth creators get up out of their seats and leave the show, leaves few of us impressed. They know what the British public know: that this is a Treasury team and a Government who, day after day, create more problems and, day after day, demonstrate that they are clearly out of their depth.

[Darren Jones]

As the shadow Minister and, I hope, the House knows, I am a humble man and am always ears-open to advice, wisdom and feedback on how we can do things better. Given his opening remarks on fiscal stability, I wonder whether he has any reflections to offer the House from the time of his party being in government and, indeed, from his time in the Treasury under former Prime Minister Liz Truss about what went wrong and what we might do differently.

[Richard Fuller]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, like so many on the Labour Benches, loves to talk—almost fondly—about the former Prime Minister Liz Truss. Well, at least she knew her time was up after 50 days; we are stuck with the Chancellor for five years.

When it was noted a few months back that the entire Labour Cabinet could barely scrape together a year’s worth of business experience between them, it was thought to be just a curiosity. Little did we know it was an early warning sign of their lack of suitability for the task of managing the British economy: business confidence down, job losses up, consumer confidence in the gutter and Government debt spiralling further upwards—and they are just getting started.

There are, of course, potential benefits from the investments that are being announced today. We share a desire for a more competitive, less regulated economy based on a passion for free enterprise, but while Labour celebrates the exodus of millionaires from our country, we recognise that it represents a loss of skills, lower job creation, and the evaporation of potential future taxation to support public services. While Labour sees the attack on family farms and family businesses as a vital part of its warped class-war ideology, we recognise that putting family at the heart of enterprise is a critical piece of our nation’s proud heritage of freedom.

[Richard Fuller]

My friend, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on economics, makes a fair point about the impact of trade agreements on family finances. However, as she knows, that is very different from the pain that farmers are feeling right now about Labour’s attack on the ability of families to pass on their farm to their children—it is different in scale and in type. It is a damaging policy by the Labour party that we know, or at least hope, that Labour will change in due course.

I am sure that today, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is also engaged in a series of phone conversations with his departmental colleagues as, ahead of the March update on the OBR’s financial forecast, they review what it will mean for their departmental expenditures. As he has those difficult phone conversations, I say to the Chief Secretary that we stand ready to support effective steps on prudent financial responsibility.

[Darren Jones]

On the point of prudent financial responsibility—[Interruption.] I think the House is interested in a long and detailed debate this evening, so it is important that we dive into the details. On this issue of prudent fiscal responsibility, the hon. Gentleman presumably welcomes our fiscal rule that day-to-day costs will be met by revenues, as opposed to having to borrow money all the time to pay those day-to-day costs. That is something that consistently happened under the last Conservative Administration, which was a mistake in the context of fiscal responsibility, was it not?

[Richard Fuller]

I am aware that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is interested in a prolonged debate today—I am not sure whether that is because of the content of the debate, or for other reasons. I would say gently to him that writing rules is different from following rules, so he will be judged by this House on how he meets the rules that he has set. My purpose today is to cover some of those rules, and I will have some comments on them, but first, although we will be having a separate debate on the welfare cap, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made some points about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) will respond formally on that issue, so these are just my thoughts, really.

The welfare cap, of course, was introduced in 2014 by Conservative Chancellor George Osborne, who recognised the particular difficulties with forecasting and managing certain welfare budgets. At the 2014 Budget, he explained his rationale:

“Britain should always be proud of having a welfare system that helps those most in need, but never again should we allow its costs to spiral out of control and its incentives to become so distorted that it pays not to work. In future, any Government who want to spend more on benefits will have to be honest with the public about the costs, will need the approval of Parliament, and will be held to account by this permanent cap on welfare.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 785.]

George Osborne’s initiative has shown its value over the past decade, and it is right that the new Government are following its intent in principle and, one hopes, also in practice. Our task today is to listen to the explanations for the breaching of the welfare cap for fiscal year 2024-25 and the rationale for the particular limits that the Chief Secretary’s Government will set on the welfare cap for future fiscal years through 2029-30.

As the Chief Secretary said, in October, as part of the first Budget of the Parliament, the OBR provided its assessment of the status of welfare spending compared with the cap that was set in 2024. That assessment was an excess of £8.6 billion, which indicated a breach. With the country now spending over £156 billion on welfare every year and with the obvious pressures on public expenditure, there should be a determination to find savings in the welfare budget. Indeed, that was the intention of the Conservative party at the last election, with a commitment to reduce expenditure by £12 billion through better targeting of disability benefits, amending the levels of payments for those whose disabilities would not routinely be expected to lead to additional life expenses, overhauling the fit note process, and introducing tougher sanctions on those who shirk the opportunity to work and contribute to society.

But the Labour Government today appear to be set on a different course, with a pathway for the welfare cap that is up, not down, growing from this year’s cap of £137 billion to reach £195 billion by 2029-30. That is a 42% increase in the welfare cap. It is important to note that at the same point in the last Parliament, when the Conservative party set the rules on the welfare cap, that increase was limited to 15%.

[Darren Jones]

rose—

[Richard Fuller]

That difference between 15% and 42% is important, is it not?

[Darren Jones]

It is important. I think we should reflect on what some of the drivers are behind the increased spend in the welfare budget, because the evidence is very clear. For people who can be—and indeed wish to be—economically active but are in receipt of universal credit support and other forms of payment, the main reasons are being unable to get access to the treatment they need in the health and mental health services space or being unable to access training opportunities for the jobs that are available in the market. Without diving too much into the weeds, that is the issue about the difference between the approach to austerity in day-to-day resource spending—where we cut spending to frontline public services—and annually managed expenditure.

[Richard Fuller]

That is all very well, but the Chief Secretary is talking about the wrong budget. He is talking about increases to the health budget or changes to aspects of the DWP budget; he is not talking about why this Government are allowing an increase of up to 42% in welfare payments in this country. That is a different issue. It shows laxity on the part of the Government. Serious questions need to be asked, and I am sure will be asked, in the next debate.

Let me return to the charter for budget responsibility, which was established by former Chancellor George Osborne as part of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011. On Second Reading, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury explained why the measure was necessary:

“We inherited the largest budget deficit in our peacetime history, we inherited a budget deficit forecast to be the largest in the G20, and we inherited the largest structural deficit in the whole of Europe.”—[Official Report, 14 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 746.]

She did not have to make up numbers, as this Government have done, about some fanciful black hole; these were facts, and my former colleague, Justine Greening, was telling the truth to the nation.

Indeed, truth is the foundation upon which any charter for budget responsibility is based. Let me be clear: when the Chancellor said on 13 November 2023 that she was

“not going to fiddle the figures or make something to get different results”,

the fiscal rules included in this charter demonstrate that she was not telling the truth. In this charter, the Chancellor has changed the rules on the measurement of debt from public sector net debt, or PSND, excluding the Bank of England, to public sector net financial liabilities, or PSNFL. This fiddling of the figures opened the taps for the Chancellor to borrow more, even while our debt to GDP ratio stands at historically high levels following the pandemic and the Ukraine war.

The Guardian newspaper, which I am sure the Chief Secretary reads avidly, reported on 24 October 2024 that if my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), the former Conservative Chancellor, had acted similarly to the current Chancellor, his fiscal headroom would have ballooned from £9 billion to £49 billion, but he knew better than the current Chancellor.

The Chancellor has even had to create her own name for things, just so that she can claim she is getting debt falling. She said in her Budget statement that she will call PSNFL

“net financial debt, for short.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 823.]

The reality is that the proper measure of Government debt, as per the previous fiscal rules, is rising in every single year of the forecast. The OBR has confirmed that on the previous definition, which she had said she would keep to, the fiscal rules are being broken. At the last election, Labour said it would get debt falling, and the Government continue to claim that they are delivering that. They are doing nothing of the sort. Let us be very clear: debt is rising, and it is forecast to continue to rise. We will be spending nearly £50 billion more on debt interest over the next five years as a result of their first Budget alone.

There are also concerns about the rolling three-year targets for the rule that the current Budget should be in surplus and the rule that debt—the Government’s dubious definition of debt—should be falling as a share of the economy. Like the water and fruit for Tantalus, the rules permit these reasonable targets to remain just out of reach every time—they are always there but never met. To extend my similes, the charter rules are to the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary as St Augustine regarded self-control: “Grant me chastity and self-control, but not yet.”

The charter begins on shakier ground with a weaker Treasury team, but it remains an important part of our country’s fiscal framework. Under the rules of the House, the motion is not amendable, so we shall not oppose the measure. We do need fiscal rules, but we condemn the Government’s approach of fiddling the figures to add more borrowing. They promised that they would not, but, as so many times before, they have broken their promises once again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

I thank right hon. and hon. Members for this afternoon’s debate. I will reflect on some of their questions and comments in winding up the debate.

To begin, I can provide assurance to the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). He was concerned that the Labour party had misled the public. There could not be anything further from the truth. In the manifesto, the wording was very clear. We would have two fiscal rules: first, to bring day-to-day spending in line with receipts; and secondly, that debt would fall as a share of the economy. Those are our fiscal rules. Now, he is right that we defined debt at the Budget, but that did not change the fiscal rule. The fiscal rule is that debt should be falling as a share of the economy. That is the fiscal rule. [Interruption.] It is the fiscal rule; there is no debate about it. It is as clear as the letters on a page. As was alluded to in the debate, the Chancellor chose a well-established metric for debt—PSNFL, public sector net financial liabilities—which recognises the fact that a competent Government can invest in the country and get a return for the taxpayer.

[Richard Fuller]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is making a bizarre comment. The point is that the Chancellor stated in 2023 that she would not fiddle the figures. She has now changed the numbers. The definition of debt for public sector net debt excluding the Bank of England is different from her PSNFL. They are different. It enables the Chancellor to borrow more. That is fiddling the figures to achieve an objective. It is not the same, and she did not tell the truth when she said that she would not fiddle the figures.

[Darren Jones]

That is a very strong accusation, which I refute in the strongest terms. The Chancellor was very clear that debt would be falling as a share of the economy. That is the fiscal rule. As predicted by the OBR, we will deliver on that promise. It is right that the Chancellor chose at the Budget to define debt as public sector net financial liabilities. The big question is why. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) said, it is because having a Government with stability and competence at their core means that we are borrowing not to pay for out of control day-to-day spending, which I think everyone in the House would agree is an unsustainable path to higher debt burdens, but instead borrowing responsibly within guard rails for investments, predominantly alongside the private sector, to enable, for example, infrastructure delivery across the country or investment in businesses, for example, through the national wealth fund.

The reason that the public sector net financial liabilities debt rule is important in that context is because it reflects the fact that, where Government have an equity stake or have provided debt for non-commercial terms, there is a rate of return. The taxpayer receives some of the benefit of that investment and growth in the economy, which I am sure we would all welcome. There is the important difference about the type of debt. Under the last Administration, debt was spiralling out of control because the last Government could not pay their day-to-day bills. Everybody knows, whether they are running their household finances or the country’s finances, that that is not a sustainable thing to do.

That has changed under this Government. Debt will be for productive investment only and day-to-day costs will be met by revenues. Yes, that means that public services have to live within their means, and often that means difficult discussions in the spending review that I have to conduct with Secretaries of State, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. However, all of us around the Cabinet table recognise not only the non-negotiable nature of the fiscal rules, which are the foundation of economic stability, but the prize of the modernisation and reform of our public services. He will have heard the Prime Minister and other Secretaries of State talk about just that fact. There is a huge amount of opportunity to achieve better outcomes for people at lower cost, not just through basic technology but by improving the way we deliver public services. That means delivering services designed around the person and how they wish to interact with the Government. It means that people can receive support from different Departments and different functions, and they can receive the information they need at the time they need it.

Let me give one example. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove)—just north of my Bristol North West constituency—I visited a community diagnostic centre. The CDC programme began under the last Administration, but we have committed ourselves to it. The provider works in partnership with the NHS trust, charging exactly the same rate as the hospital for a diagnostic scan. The company involved does not make profits in comparison with the hospital costs; it is the same NHS tariff rate. People can have MRI and CT scans, gastroscopies, and other tests. The centre is attached to a branch of Asda and there is plenty of free parking.

I asked the owners, “Why are you able to charge the same rates as the hospital in my constituency while running this service more effectively?” They said, “We are open for 14 hours a day from Monday to Saturday and for 12 hours on Sunday, we sweat the assets more than a hospital can, and we have new bits of kit with AI that are more productive to use”—which is why the Health Secretary wants to roll those out across the NHS. They also said that the customer service was the key driver for productivity, because customers could book their appointments and move them if necessary, they could visit the centre after work, and they could go there between shopping trips. Essentially, the service has been designed around the patient. Patients turn up pretty much all the time, and they are never not able to do so. That is just one example of the way we are modernising public services.

[Daisy Cooper]

The Chief Secretary has given a fantastic example of how improving capital infrastructure in the NHS can improve productivity, but one of the big frustrations in the NHS is the fact that staff cannot be productive because the buildings around them are falling apart. I have seen that in Watford General hospital, where A&E staff cannot be as productive as they might be because they are in a crumbling, cramped hospital. Has the Treasury considered conducting any assessment of the productivity gains that could be produced by the new hospital programme, and by potentially speeding up the delivery of those hospitals?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

The Health Secretary is actively working on this. There are huge opportunities, not just in the NHS but in the Department for Work and Pensions where my right hon. and hon. Friends are working, and throughout Government as a whole. Imagine having a jobcentre in your pocket, on your phone, where you can gain access to the support that you need—as opposed to services that are often out of town or not available when you are available, and where there are difficult processes to go through. That is not great for the people who work in those services. They are there to serve the public, but they are not helped to achieve the right outcomes for people.

This Government are committed to reform but also to investment, because we can achieve better outcomes for people and reduce the cost of running public services in the long run. We are committed to unlocking investment, whether it is through the PSNFL debt definition for infrastructure and businesses or, as a consequence, freeing up public sector grants for public sector investment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) made a number of excellent points. I am pleased that he is supportive of the commitments made by the Chancellor today to back the Heathrow plans and the enormous opportunity presented by the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. He gave the great example of his local technology and telecoms cluster and its development around rail infrastructure, including extra capacity on the Elizabeth line. It is a classic and probably obvious example: if rail and other transport infrastructure is built, people will come and invest in lab spaces, offices and homes. That is why the Chancellor made such a strong commitment today to get infrastructure built and enable private sector investment.

My hon. Friend also made a good point about the role of universities. Our universities sector is one of our great strengths. We have a number of world-leading universities, as well as the brilliant universities that are teaching and carrying out research in every part of our country. These are often the engines of economic growth in their regions, and also the gateway to opportunity for many people.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The Chief Secretary has referred to the great benefit of infrastructure projects. The Elizabeth line is a very good example of that, but it was way over budget and very late, and the same applies to HS2 and most other big infrastructure projects. What plans do the Government have in that regard? Later we will discuss the welfare cap, an attempt to control welfare spending for the next five years. Does the same cap apply to infrastructure projects?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question, because he invites me to talk the House through our infrastructure strategy. For the first time, we are bringing together Government plans on economic infrastructure, housing and social infrastructure in the same place. It means that when we go through the spending review in the Treasury, working with colleagues across Whitehall, we will be much better than the previous Government at taking place-based decisions. In the past, it was a bilateral discussion between a Department and the Treasury, with no dots being connected between different types of infrastructure. That has led to the failure to capture the growth potential in different places.

We will take a different approach and make sure that infrastructure investments relating to public investment are capped by the numbers set out in the Budget. That is the spending envelope that we have, and we have to prioritise those investments, but they will be based on driving growth and opportunity for people in the places in which they live.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central made a great point about the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, the role of connecting some of our great universities, and unleashing the opportunity that exists between them. As I said to the House earlier, the living connectivity arrangements between Oxford and Cambridge are basically non-existent. By connecting these two hubs of innovation and investment, the opportunities are endless.

[Richard Fuller]

I have to be careful, because I have a significant constituency interest in this issue, but I want to ask a more general question about the role of infrastructure investments and the fiscal rules. East West Rail’s proposal to complete the railway line had a benefit-cost ratio of 0.3 in its last business case: building it would basically lose 70p of every pound of taxpayers’ money. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury regard that as a loss? If not, will there be a business case that shows that the project has a benefit-cost ratio that does not lose taxpayers’ money?

[Darren Jones]

That is a great question. All these infrastructure opportunities will go through both value-for-money assessments and growth assessments. The argument that we have been making today is that initiating projects such as the East West Rail line in a co-ordinated way with private capital, universities and our house building plans lifts the growth opportunities that come from those projects. That is why Patrick Vallance has been appointed as the champion of the growth corridor. We will take a whole-corridor view on the investments and the opportunities across different investments, regardless of whether they are public or private, but they will all have to go through value-for-money and growth assessments.

The infrastructure strategy will be a 10-year strategy. It will give a long-term view on economic, housing and social infrastructure, but they will be underpinned by longer-term capital budgets. The capital budget that we will set in June will be for four years, until 2029-30, but the normal approach, as set out in the charter, will be that the capital budgets will be for five years. As the House knows, we have committed to doing the next spending review every subsequent two years. In 2027, when we conduct the next spending review, we will have the 10-year infrastructure strategy but also pretty much 10 years of capital budgets being allocated for those projects. That is a hugely important signal to investors.

We are working with industry and investors on what the biannual pipeline might look like, so that we can publish in real terms the investable propositions, but also so that businesses know that work is coming if they invest in their supply chain or their workforce. That is a crucial part of unlocking investment in skills and training in our country. Much like we have just seen in the water industry, which has agreed a longer-term investment settlement, suppliers are already telling us that they are now able to invest in staff, training and capabilities, because they know that the flow of investment will be coming over a period of time. We are seeking to do that across a range of infrastructure in order to unlock the investment that this country needs.

[Matt Rodda]

I should like to ask my right hon. Friend some further questions on the points he is making. The Elizabeth line demonstrates the case that he is making for the importance of place-based investment and the way in which houses, flats and businesses have been built near stations. There has been a combination of public and private investment in the project, which is arguably part of its success. So I welcome the points he is making about the longevity of the infrastructure investment, the role of the joint investment or co-ordinated investment with the private sector and, above all, the place-based nature of this. The role of Patrick Vallance, in particular, is an important one in that corridor. I would also urge my right hon. Friend again to look at the far ends of the corridor, both at the Oxfordshire and Berkshire end and also possibly towards Norwich and further into East Anglia. I know that a former Minister in the previous Government has been highlighting the potential benefits of investment along rail in East Anglia.

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He reminds me that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) asked me about broader reform to ensure that infrastructure is delivered differently from how it has been in the past, and I would point the House to the action that Ministers have already taken to call in projects that have been gummed up in the system for a long time, which we have allowed to take place, and also to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that will be presented to the House in due course, which will show the level of ambition this Government have for streamlining planning and consenting processes so that we can get things built. As I have already mentioned, I think today in the House, the fact that we can build a house for someone in 14 to 16 weeks but it seems to take years to get planning approved shows the size of the prize for delivering for people across the country.

I will end by thanking the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans, for her comments and for reminding the House why this debate matters and why the fiscal rules matter. Because, as we saw under the last Administration, this is not an obscure debate here in the House of Commons, or a kind of Whitehall guidance debate; this is important to people’s lives, because when Governments lose control of the economy nationally, it hits family finances.

We all know from talking to our constituents how stressful it was when the Conservative party lost control of the economy and when inflation went through the roof. It had a direct impact on people’s mortgages and on their ability to buy a house. So many people lost their mortgage offers overnight because of the actions of the last Government. It also affected people in the private rented sector when their landlords increased the rent, and because no-fault evictions were allowed under the last Government, many people lost their homes. This fundamental insecurity in people’s lives stems from the actions of politicians here in Government.

That is why the fiscal rules are so important and why the Chancellor—and indeed the whole Government—are so iron-clad in their commitment to them. That is why the fiscal rules are non-negotiable. [Interruption.] Shadow Ministers on the Conservative Benches laugh, but I would encourage them to meet some of our constituents and to explain why their actions led to such hardship for them. I have not even started to talk about the cost of energy bills or the food inflation that we are still struggling with today, directly as a consequence of the mismanagement of the economy under the last Administration. The sooner the Conservatives—should they wish to receive advice from me—apologise for the consequences of their actions, the sooner the public might start to listen to them again.

But while they are listening to this Labour Government, I can reassure hon. and right hon. Members in the House today that the fiscal rules are non-negotiable. They are the bedrock of economic stability. They enable us to invest in our public services in a sustainable way, to secure growth in the economy and, ultimately, as set out in the Prime Minister’s plan for change, to deliver for working people so that they will know in the years ahead that life is better under a Labour Government than it is under a Conservative Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Charter for Budget Responsibility: Autumn 2024, which was laid before this House on 22 January, be approved.

Growing the UK Economy

Darren Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the Government’s work to unlock investment and secure economic growth. That is the No. 1 mission of this Government. Without growth, we cannot deliver on the priorities of the British people, cut NHS waiting lists, rebuild our schools or put more police on our streets. That is why the pursuit of growth is our first mission, putting our country on a new path towards a brighter future after 14 years of failure from the Conservatives. By helping businesses to invest and create wealth, we ensure they can provide jobs and opportunities that change lives, putting more pounds in people’s pockets and rejuvenating communities across the country.

We have seen progress on that already, with huge private sector investments into our country since this Government came into service, but now we must go faster and further. We must help businesses and places to achieve their potential. We do that by being an active and strategic state—one that works in true partnership with businesses, investors and local leaders to deliver for the British people in every corner of the country. That principle was at the heart of the Chancellor’s speech earlier today in Oxfordshire, where she announced the latest steps that the Government are taking to drive growth across the country. I am pleased to update the House on those announcements now.

The economic growth we are pursuing must reach into every town, city and community across the United Kingdom—inclusive growth for everyone, not just those at the top—because there is untapped talent and unrealised opportunity throughout the country and we cannot let that go to waste any longer. If we can raise the productivity of major cities like Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds just to the national average, we will deliver an extra £33 billion in economic output. So I can confirm that our plans for regional growth will be hardwired into the spending review, the infrastructure strategy, the industrial strategy and our approach to trade and investment.

We are already providing £200 million of funding to support the development of a new mass transit system in West Yorkshire, and at the autumn Budget we secured improved connections between towns and cities from Manchester through to York. We are also developing our plans to further improve connectivity in the north and across the country through our 10-year infrastructure strategy, which will set out our long-term vision for social and economic infrastructure across the country.

Today we are progressing with the Wrexham and Flintshire investment zone, focusing on the area’s incredible strength in advanced manufacturing to leverage in £1 billion of private investment and create up to 6,000 new jobs. As the Chancellor announced at Davos last week, the Office for Investment will work hand in hand with local areas to develop opportunities for international inward investment, starting with the Liverpool city region and the North East combined authority, while the national wealth fund will build on its strength and combined authority engagement to build a pipeline of investable propositions with mayors, starting with strategic partnerships in the Glasgow city region, West Yorkshire, the west midlands and Greater Manchester. Sticking with Manchester, we are giving our support to the Mayor of Greater Manchester’s plan for the redevelopment of Old Trafford, creating new housing, new commercial developments and a new stadium—but, I am advised to inform the House, not necessarily Government-wide support for the team that play there.

I am pleased to update the House on our new approach to the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, a hugely exciting opportunity for the UK and the British economy. For centuries these two cities have been synonymous with inspiration, invention and innovation. Economic analysis suggests that with the right support the region could bring a GDP boost of £78 billion by 2035, yet time and again Governments have failed to capitalise on this remarkable area, most recently in 2021 when the last Government dropped their commitment to what they called the Ox-Cam arc project.

Through under-investment, poor transport connections and a lack of affordable housing, the incredible growth potential of the area has been squandered as people and businesses have been forced to move and invest elsewhere. No longer: Lord Vallance will act as our champion for the growth corridor, utilising his impressive experience in life sciences, academia and Government to unlock growth opportunities across the region and promote its potential to investors across the world. We will establish a new growth commission for Oxford, to recognise and capitalise on the growth potential of this historic city.

We already know, of course, that transportation is a huge factor in the success of the country. Heathrow is the UK’s only hub airport and our largest air freight hub by volume, connecting us to emerging markets around the world, opening up new opportunities for trade and investment. But its growth has been constrained for decades. Today we are announcing that the Government support and are inviting proposals for a third runway at Heathrow airport, to be brought forward by the summer. This is an important infrastructure project expected to have positive growth impacts across the United Kingdom, and it has the backing of businesses and business groups including the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and British Chambers of Commerce as well as trade unions such as the GMB and Unite.

According to a recent study from Frontier Economics, a third runway could increase GDP by 0.43% over the next 25 years, with over half—60%—of that boost going to areas outside London and the south-east. It could create over 100,000 jobs in the local area and maintain Heathrow’s status both as a global passenger hub and as the UK’s largest air freight hub by volume.

Reforms this Government have introduced to speed up the planning system will ensure the delivery of the project and set it up for success. Once proposals have been received the Government will take forward a full assessment through the airport national policy statement to ensure that any scheme is delivered in line with our legal, environmental and climate obligations. We want the scheme to be value for money, and our clear expectation is that any surface transport costs associated with the project will be financed by private capital and should be sustainable and low-carbon. The Secretary of State for Transport will also set out planning decisions for further airport expansion at Gatwick and Luton shortly.

Crucially, I am pleased to announce that we are taking further steps in our transition to greener, cleaner aviation. At the start of the month, the sustainable aviation fuel mandate became law. Sustainable aviation fuel reduces carbon dioxide emissions compared with fossil jet fuel by around 70%. Today we are announcing an additional £63 million for the advanced fuels fund over the next year, and we have set out the details of how we will deliver a revenue certainty mechanism. Those measures will support investment and high-skill green jobs in plants across the United Kingdom, delivering sustainable aviation fuel here in the UK for UK consumption.

Transportation is equally important on a local level, and that is as true for the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor as it is for anywhere else. This Government have confirmed that they will provide crucial funding for transport links, including upgrades to the A428 to reduce journey times between Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge, as well as for East West Rail with new services between Oxford and Milton Keynes starting this year. We have already received submissions to the new towns taskforce to build new developments along the new railway. At Tempsford, we will accelerate delivery of a mainline station on the east coast main line so that travellers can get to London in under an hour and to Cambridge in under 30 minutes once East West Rail has been delivered.

We will ensure that the pioneering work that has long been a hallmark of the area will continue. We are today committing to a new AI growth zone in Culham. We welcome the University of Cambridge’s plan for a new flagship innovation hub in the centre of Cambridge, and a new Cambridge cancer research hospital will be delivered as part of wave one of the new hospital programme. Just yesterday, Moderna completed the build for its new vaccine production and research and development site in Harwell, while committing to invest £1 billion in the United Kingdom—proof that when we create the conditions for success, businesses can lead the way.

I am pleased to confirm for the House that the Environment Agency is lifting its objections to specific developments in Cambridge, so we will press on with plans to develop 4,500 additional homes, new schools and office, retail and lab spaces in and around Cambridge. In a further boost to the area, we have now agreed water resource management plans with water companies, unlocking £7.9 billion of investment in water resources over the next five years, including the new Fens reservoir serving Cambridge and the south-east strategic reservoir near Oxford.

This Government have come in with a purpose: to bring growth, and with it opportunity, to the country. In just six months, we have taken the tough decisions to make that possible. We are taking on the responsibility of a Government who deliver real change for people—no longer the hollow promises of the Conservative party, but change delivered under this Labour Government, working with business and local leaders to drive the growth that will lift up this country. Now we must go further and faster so that the next generation and the generation after will have the opportunities they deserve, to ensure that Britain is strong and successful once again in a fast-changing world and so that everybody in this country can have the chance to succeed. Today’s announcements will help make that a reality and show how our plan for change will build a better Britain. I commend the statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

The Chief Secretary told us that growth is the No. 1 mission of this Government and added, “Now we must go faster”, which I have to tell him suggests a certain lack of ambition. What we do not need is some hasty mañana moment of unquantified, vague promises of a better tomorrow; we need action now to reverse the grievous damage that this Chancellor has wrought in just her first six months in office. Why did the Government deliver a Budget that the independent Office for Budget Responsibility said would lead to lower growth, higher inflation and higher interest rates and would cost jobs? I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that “going for growth” in the 2030s means nothing to the businesses that have already stopped hiring, shed workers and put up prices thanks to Labour’s ruinous policies.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that these announcements have been hastily cobbled together by a Government who are under increasing pressure to change course but are seemingly incapable of doing so. Why have these announcements come only now? The Labour party had years in opposition and months in government leading up to its first Budget. If the Government really wanted to unleash investment, innovation and the private sector, they should not have decided in the autumn to increase substantially the tax burden and the size of the state. By doing so, far from encouraging private investment, they are actively squeezing it out. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury reassure businesses right now that there will be no further growth-destroying fiscal measures in the spring statement, including tax rises?

Is the truth not that the damage is already being done? Even before Labour’s tax rises bite in April, the economy is flatlining right now, so will any of the announcements have an impact within this Parliament, and what—if any—impact are they likely to have on the OBR’s forecasts in March?

Incredibly, the Chancellor said in her speech that businesses are what drive growth and that the Government should support them, yet this is a Government who have driven business confidence off a cliff. They have taxed businesses to the hilt and, through their upcoming employment legislation, will be hitting them still further with ever more job-destroying red tape. Can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury set out what the overall impact of Government policy decisions since July has been on regulatory costs for businesses? Does he agree with the Business Secretary’s extraordinary utterance on the media this morning that the Government have not hammered businesses?

The Chancellor claimed this morning that she has seen no alternative suggestions from the Opposition, so let me give her one now. Last year, the Conservative manifesto included £12 billion in welfare savings. At the time, the Labour party said that the money simply was not there. Now we are told that the Government will shortly be coming forward with plans for welfare reform— another damascene conversion. If they had grasped this issue when they came into office, they could have tackled the rising welfare bill, rather than taxing jobs and killing growth. The Government’s failure to act means that businesses and millions of people are paying the price, so can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury commit today to matching that £12 billion, or can he at least tell us the scale of savings that we can expect from his promised reforms?

Some of the announcements made today are of course welcome. The role of the Opposition is not to oppose for opposition’s sake, not least because many of the measures announced are reheated from the previous Conservative Government. The plans on pension investment, for example, seem oddly familiar to us, probably because they are simply to continue the reforms that I was bringing in when I was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Even in this area, though, we must wait and see before passing judgment, because this Government have shown that we simply cannot trust their word. They promised not to raise taxes, but they did. They promised not to cut winter fuel payments, but they did. They promised not to borrow more, but they did. We need to see action, not just words.

The Chancellor talks about removing barriers to growth—oh yes, she talks about it—but that talk comes from the same person whose Budget killed the economy and growth stone-dead. If we are looking to remove the greatest barriers to growth in this country, perhaps we should start with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[Darren Jones]

The House is indebted to the shadow Chancellor—Mr Melmentum himself—for his lecture on the need for speed from this Government. Let me tell him that we have done more in the last six or seven months than that lot did in the last 14 years.

The shadow Chancellor asked me about our plans to work with business. The comments today from business leaders and investors speak for themselves: our plans are welcomed by businesses, and we will be working in partnership with them to deliver for this country. He also asked me about work. Those of us in the Labour party make no secret of the fact that we like to support people into work—strong, secure work with workplace rights and secure incomes to help make people’s family finances add up. That is why our party was created in the first place. The real truth from the data is that under the last Government, too many people were waiting at home sick, unable to get NHS appointments or access to mental health services so that they could be helped back into work. Too many people were waiting at home, waiting for training and unable to seize the opportunities advertised in front of them. This Labour Government will not treat those things as a luxury, but will work at speed to give people the work they deserve.

At the heart of the shadow Chancellor’s statement was a truth for the country to consider. Under the last Administration, it was promises cancelled; under this Administration, it is promises being delivered.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome this Government’s commitment to infrastructure investment and to telling the world that Britain is open for business, but to achieve all of this, we will need a really skilled workforce to deliver on those major construction projects. May I ask my right hon. Friend to set out how the Government will ensure that we have the skills to deliver what he has promised?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the Chair of the Treasury Committee for her question. This is an important test of turning policy into real-world delivery. Through our infrastructure and industrial strategies, we are engaging right now with businesses and investors across the country so that as we bring forward our plans, we have a skills and training system that creates opportunities for people to take up the jobs that we need them to do in order to help get Britain building. That will be a crucial part of our approach to infrastructure, so that every person across the country can seize the benefits of this Government’s plans.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

The Government are absolutely right to focus on economic growth, but their blinkered approach on Europe is holding back British businesses and stifling the very growth that we need to fund our public services. By ruling out negotiations with the EU on a bespoke customs union and a youth mobility scheme, the Chancellor’s dash for growth will be more like a slow crawl in a car with the handbrake on. In order to turbocharge economic growth, will the Government start negotiating those initiatives now?

To unleash growth through our small businesses, the Chancellor should scrap her national insurance contributions rise, and instead seek to raise the same amount of money through the measures that we Liberal Democrats have suggested: reversing the tax cuts on the big banks, increasing taxes on the big tech and gaming companies, and reforming capital gains tax in a way that would be fairer and raise more money. Will the Government look again at those alternative revenue raisers and lift the burden that the Government have placed on small business?

On airports, the Chancellor has voiced her support for Heathrow expansion and has suggested that expansion will be forthcoming for other airports. We Liberal Democrats oppose this, because it will deliver minimal growth at a huge cost to the climate. Can the Government confirm whether they intend to abide by the advice of their own climate change advisers that no airport expansion should proceed until a UK-wide capacity management framework is in place? In the midst of a climate emergency, can the Government give a cast-iron guarantee that the so-called refreshed carbon budget that the Chancellor referred to will not water down climate targets, and what do they have to say to those experts who say that sustainable aviation fuel is not realistic or scalable?

Turning to the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, we really welcome plans that further boost the UK’s position as a European and global science leader. Can the Government confirm that there will be enough money for the whole of the route to be constructed on the East West Rail route, and that they will work hand in glove with local authorities to minimise the environmental impacts, introduce infrastructure before or alongside housing, and maximise local community benefits?

[Darren Jones]

As the hon. Lady knows, this Government committed in their manifesto to not rejoin the single market or the customs union. We will honour that promise, but the trade deal that the previous Government put together was clearly not good enough. There is room for us to improve our trading, energy and security relationships with our friends in the European Union, and my ministerial colleagues are in active discussions with their counterparts to take that work forward.

The hon. Lady invited me to speculate on any future Budgets. That is above my pay grade, but I am sure the Chancellor heard her suggestions. On airports, as I said in my statement, all our plans will be in line with our legal obligations. Of course, we recognise the need for more sustainable fuel and sustainable transport as part of those expansion plans.

Lastly, the hon. Lady asked me about something that I cannot read—

[Daisy Cooper]

East West Rail.

[Darren Jones]

Thank you. I thought it was “EU” again—I could not read my own handwriting.

The whole premise of the growth corridor is that we will have a transport spine through that corridor that allows for all the developments—housing, lab space or communities—around it. That is a crucial part of our plans, and we will make sure that it is delivered.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a plan for growth that is both concrete—shovels in the ground now—and forward-looking, building on our scientific and skills base to drive long-term jobs and higher living standards. Heathrow expansion will help businesses in the north-east, but for the sake of those of us who are not Manchester United fans, will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury make it clear that much of the investment in the Man U development will be private sector-based? Will he also set out how that will help the rest of the north, particularly Newcastle United fans such as myself?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee for her question. She and her Committee know the huge advantage we have in the UK with our brilliant universities and research and development ecosystem, which is why we are supporting them and putting rocket boosters underneath their activity to develop world-leading and frontier research and innovation, and stimulate economic growth across the country.

My hon. Friend is right that the development in Manchester is a broad set of privately financed housing and commercial opportunities, as well as the work that Manchester United wants to do with its football stadium. I should inform the House that I cannot give a running commentary on the stadium applications for all football clubs across the country, and she will have to forgive me for not knowing the latest plans for Newcastle.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s conversion on a third runway at Heathrow. The sort of connectivity that that enables, particularly with fast-growing economies in Asia and the Gulf, is essential to growth. However, what assurance can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury give the House that this project will not subsequently be stymied by an absolutist approach driven by ideology towards carbon emissions, which will drive it into the ground? We have been down this path before.

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Member has been down this path before because it was his Government who went down it and blocked all these developments over the past 14 years. This Government are working on reforms to the planning system, looking at national policy statements, thinking about skills and infrastructure supply chains, and unlocking private capital because we are a Government who want to get Britain building again, and not block the projects that were stalled for years under the previous Administration.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Dr Jeevun Sandher, a member of the Select Committee.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Investment is what makes us more prosperous; it produces more work, it gets wages rising and it creates good jobs. I am an East Midlands MP, and we have some of the lowest investment rates in the country, the least transport infrastructure and some of the lowest private investment. That is why I welcome the announcement today of £1 billion going to the manufacturing and logistics hub at East Midlands airport. I especially welcome the 2,000 extra jobs that will benefit my constituents in Loughborough, Shepshed and Hathern. Will the Chief Secretary assure me that this is just the beginning of the investment we can expect in the region and for my constituents?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is a strong advocate for the economy in the East Midlands and for his constituency. He will know that I visited the region last week and met businesses and investors with our Mayor, Claire Ward. The region is doing a brilliant job of securing inward investment, and there is huge untapped potential in the East Midlands. I am pleased that the Chancellor was able to make those announcements today, and we very much look forward to hearing about more business cases and more potential so that we can unlock growth in the East Midlands.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Select Committee member Dame Harriett Baldwin.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I am sure the Chief Secretary knows and admires the plan for growth of Conservative-led Worcestershire county council. It has been working through the plan, and it has built a new train station on the North Cotswold line, which connects Worcestershire to Oxford, but a lot of that line is still single track. Will he urge the Oxford growth commission to look at the extensive work done by Oxfordshire county council and Worcestershire county council to find a way to double the frequency of the train services on that stretch of track?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady. The growth commission will be looking at all potential options for stimulating growth. We want to find strategic enabling investments across the country to unlock, for example, house building and inward investment, and I am sure it will look at those proposals with interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement about investment and growth. Does he agree with me about the role that new towns will play in tackling our country’s housing crisis and how important it is that, alongside the homes in the new towns, we see the delivery of new social infrastructure? Can he outline how those plans will work?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend. As I informed the House recently, our infrastructure strategy, which will be published in June, will for the first time align social infrastructure plans for schools, GP surgeries and other public service facilities with those for housing and economic infrastructure. For the first time, we will be making strategic decisions about the places where people live.

On the house building target—I met tenants who will be moving into new social homes in Erewash last week—we talk about 1.5 million homes and about economic growth, but in every one of those buildings is someone’s life, their opportunities and the dreams they want to fulfil. This Government are delivering on economic growth, and we are doing so because the people at the heart of all these decisions are the people we need to get the economy moving and Britain doing well in the future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Select Committee member John Glen.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Among the fundamental enablers of growth in the economy are financial services and opening up markets to invest. I think there was consensus across this House in the last Parliament on the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, which provided the framework to do that. What concrete proposals have come forward from the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority consideration of changing some of the restrictions that stop the right levels of investment? This week, the Government enabled about £100 billion of surplus funds from defined-benefit pension schemes to be made available. What proportion of that money will be invested and in what timeframe? The concern around these announcements is the delay to tangible, calculable economic impact.

[Darren Jones]

I point the right hon. Member to the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech, which set out in detail this Government’s approach to financial services. They are an important enabler for the UK and a particular strength globally, as I know he knows very well. On his particular question, I will need to write to him with the answer, but he can see that this Government are taking action to unlock investment in the UK economy. As has been reported, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have been meeting regulators to make sure that they are geared for growth as well as for protecting consumers.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I also welcome the Chief Secretary’s statement and the Chancellor’s announcement about the many excellent transport schemes that this country so badly needs. The Transport Committee will look at these proposals, starting with the new proposal for runway 3 at Heathrow. He links that proposal to UK-wide growth, but did the Treasury consider the Department for Transport’s 2020 figures predicting that between 2010 and 2050 there would be a 24% cut in flights between regional airports in the UK and Heathrow because of the way the market for slots at Heathrow operates, regardless of what regional airports might want?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Transport Committee for her question. I think it alludes to the fact that this is the announcement not just of a runway, but of a project which we must make sure is optimised for delivering growth for the whole of the United Kingdom, as I made clear in my statement. That means that we need to work with regional airports and look at how the slots are allocated at Heathrow, to make sure that Heathrow’s business model optimises opportunities for regional airports and the whole of the United Kingdom. That is a commitment that the Government have made very clear today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Select Committee member Bobby Dean.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The whole House supports a focus on growth, which is good for our prosperity and key to funding our public services. However, growth has not only a rate but a direction, and how we seek to achieve growth is about choices. If we choose to back measures that undermine our net zero targets, we may be going for growth today with severe consequences for tomorrow. How do the Government justify their choice to back Heathrow expansion over more sustainable rail transport projects across the country?

[Darren Jones]

I am sure the hon. Member shares my view that we can achieve growth through our net zero plans. These things are not an either/or. For example, the announcement of this Government supporting investment in Heathrow and in the sustainable aviation fuel sector will stimulate investment in net zero technologies and industry in the UK. This can be a win-win for the economy and the environment.

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, which I think demonstrates a real commitment by this Government to take the shackles off our economy. I particularly welcome his commitment to a 10-year transport infrastructure plan. As well as the measures already announced to boost connectivity across the Pennines and elsewhere, will he commit to continuing to see what can be done to address connectivity and capacity challenges north of Birmingham arising from the cancellation of HS2?

[Darren Jones]

Those are exactly the issues that Departments are now considering as they submit bids to the Treasury in the spending review. As we move into those negotiations in March, we will have to look at the best growth potential and what we can get delivered on what timeframe. We will be able to confirm those plans in the coming months.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

There is nothing in the statement about the lower Thames crossing, which has already been delayed twice by this Government. The crossing is one of the biggest infrastructure projects and will have a huge impact on the entire country. For my constituents, the biggest issues around growth have been about the taxes on business—particularly on family companies—and the jobs tax. Why are the Government not addressing those real issues, which were not addressed in the statement?

[Darren Jones]

The Chancellor will be disappointed that the right hon. Member did not listen to her speech. She announced today—[Interruption.] We are in negotiations with the project leaders at the lower Thames crossing. We are committed to bringing that forward and will have further announcements to make in due course.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

May I congratulate the Chief Secretary on his statement but add a word of caution about his plans for Heathrow? Will he ensure that there is a full cost-benefit analysis of any plans for a third runway which looks at the cost to the climate, to public health and to the already saturated transport infrastructure? Almost 40 years of dealing with Heathrow has taught me that what is good for Heathrow’s shareholders is usually bad for its neighbours and for the climate, leaving Government at all levels picking up the costs and cleaning up the mess.

[Darren Jones]

I know that my hon. Friend has been working on this issue for many years. As I have said, we want the Heathrow project to be a success for the whole country, and that means in relation to sustainable low-carbon transport and connectivity as well as for local jobs and the local economy. As I said in the statement, as proposals are put forward by Heathrow, the Government will consider them in the normal way, in line with all our legal obligations.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

In November 2020, when giving evidence to the Treasury Committee, the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility, Richard Hughes, stated that further investment in infrastructure such as extending airport capacity would not deliver high economic returns as the UK is already highly connected. Without a proposal on the table for Heathrow, how can the Chancellor be so sure that a third runway will drive high national economic growth?

[Darren Jones]

We hear from businesses, investors, businesspeople, travellers and people who want to be able to come through London or the UK that we are losing trade and investment in comparison with other hub airports on mainland Europe. We have every opportunity to secure that here in the UK, and that will, by its very nature, secure investment, jobs and economic growth.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

The Chancellor highlighted the redevelopment of Old Trafford in her speech, but similar investment is happening in Luton, where Power Court is set to be the new home of Luton Town football club. That mixed-use housing and commercial development will bring new opportunities and support the regeneration of our town. May I invite the Minister to join me on a visit to see how that will be a key driver of economic growth across Bedfordshire and the eastern region?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend knows that I am not let out of the Treasury often, but when I am I will be delighted to visit. These are classic examples of how, by working together with private investors and local businesses to co-ordinate investment on road junctions, rail, housing developments or even football stadiums, we can get to a point where we can unlock economic growth for people and improve their communities. We are absolutely interested in looking at all those opportunities.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

What assessment has the Treasury made of whether the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions will increase or decrease business investment?

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Member is inviting me to speculate on the OBR forecast, which will be presented to the House on 26 March.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

There is so much to be welcomed in the statement, but sadly it has been tainted by the decision on the third runway at Heathrow. When such a decision is made by the Government, it is important that there is full openness and transparency so that we can explain the Government's thinking to our constituents. Will the Minister ensure that the papers that led to this damascene conversion among some members of the Cabinet are published openly, particularly those on how increased carbon emissions will be tackled; how we will meet our carbon capacity statements; how agriculture in this country will be converted to meet the sustainable aviation fuel requirements; how the noise contours will impact on so many more people—2 million people; how current emissions will be tackled, as air pollution is already above the legal limits; and how the 8,000 to 10,000 of my constituents will be rehoused when 4,000 properties are demolished as a result of this decision?

[Darren Jones]

As I have confirmed to the House, we are inviting applications from Heathrow, which will be considered in the normal way. When those applications have been received and due diligence has been undertaken, we will be able to report the details that will answer the right hon. Member’s questions.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

It says on the cover that this is about growing the UK economy, but the statement’s substance is much more about growing the English economy. It has a passing reference to Wrexham and a nebulous acknowledgement that the Government will “build a pipeline of investable propositions…starting with strategic partnerships in the Glasgow city region”. Will the Chief Secretary perhaps flesh out what that means and, at the same time, explain why he did not allocate any funding to reimbursing Edinburgh University for the supercomputer, invest in SAF in Grangemouth, or invest in the Acorn project in the north-east?

[Darren Jones]

Scotland is an important part of our United Kingdom economy. We will continue to invest in the country, as we did at the recent Budget, with the largest real-terms increase in spending since devolution. I am always ears-open to opportunities for growth, but the hon. Member might want to speak to his SNP colleagues in the Scottish Government and try to stimulate some investment there as well.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

I warmly welcome the plan for growth, which stands in stark contrast to the low-growth, low-wage and low-investment economy of the last 14 years, but as welcome as the Old Trafford development is, the House will know that I am a Dale fan. May I therefore urge the Treasury and Chief Secretary to warmly support the Atom Valley mayoral development zone, which is being pushed by Andy Burnham to help advanced manufacturing in Rochdale?

[Darren Jones]

That sounds like an excellent initiative that will benefit from the huge untapped potential in the Greater Manchester and regional economy, which we are trying to stimulate with our announcements today. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend in due course to understand more of the detail.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

The Chief Secretary said that he wanted economic growth to spread to every town, city and community—something we can all agree with. I have been campaigning for many years to restore the direct train service between Cleethorpes, Grimsby and King’s Cross. That would boost the local economy and is supported by the Hull and Humber chamber of commerce, businesses up and down my constituency and, on the Government Benches, by my MP, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn). All that is needed to provide the service at the next timetable change is the go-ahead from the Transport Secretary. Will the Chief Secretary urge her to do just that?

[Darren Jones]

I am sure that the Transport Secretary has heard the hon. Member’s request. As he will know from our announcements today and at the Budget, the investment that we seek to unlock in his region is a crucial part of our industrial plans, not least the investment in sustainable aviation fuel that I set out. If the transport project that he mentions will unlock investment, housing and opportunities in the region, I am sure that we will look at it closely.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

I have consistently called for new investment in the eastern region, and nothing is more exciting than the proposal to build a Universal Studios theme park—the first of its kind in Europe—in Bedford. The project has huge potential to transform the region. Will the Chief Secretary provide an update and reassure me that progress is being made on turning that plan into reality?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Hopefully the Minister can meet that enthusiasm.

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend, who has campaigned tirelessly for this investment in the region since he has been the House. As he will know, the Government are in negotiations with partners for the development. Unfortunately, I cannot update the House at this stage, but I look forward to doing so in due course.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

As the MP for the dreaming spires, may I thank the Government for their vote of confidence in my constituents’ ability to deliver the growth that this country, and arguably the world, needs? I take umbrage with one thing. The Chief Secretary talks about the Oxford plan. Given that the Chancellor gave her speech not in Oxford city or its environs but in Eynsham, will he name the growth commission not the Oxford commission but the Oxfordshire commission? Will he meet me and my many Liberal Democrat colleagues, so that we can work with him to maximise the potential of the plan?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady for her suggestion. It is not for me to get in the middle of boundary disputes, but I will take that back to the Treasury and see what we can do.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Ind)]

As a United fan, I hugely welcome the economic and social benefits that the Old Trafford redevelopment could bring to the city of Salford. How will the Chief Secretary require those who are awarded contracts to do all they can to employ, train and retain local people, and to ensure that that ethos is mirrored across supply chains?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. These projects have to benefit local communities, local workers and local businesses, as well as others. There can be no greater advocate of that approach than the Mayor of Greater Manchester. Between his work and good offices and the Government’s approach to social value and procurement, I am sure that will be able to deliver that outcome.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Given that construction of the Oxford to Milton Keynes section of East West Rail was completed when Hugh Merriman, the last Conservative rail Minister, pulled the last rail clip into place, it is a bit rich of the Chief Secretary to try to claim credit for it. In one breath he said that he wanted to work in partnership with local leaders, and in the next he reheated the idea of a top-down, Government-knows-best Ox-Cam arc, rebranding it the Oxford to Cambridge growth commission. Local leaders in Buckinghamshire have consistently said no to that top-down spatial strategy, choosing instead to grow jobs locally, including at Westcott space cluster. Does he really want to work with local leaders in Buckinghamshire, or does he just want to tell them what to do?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member is what we call a blocker. That is not in the nature of this Government. We will get on and deliver.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement on growth. Does he agree that alongside upgrading transport infrastructure, we should create more homes and infrastructure around existing commuter lines, such as the Bolton-to-Manchester line in my constituency?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In working on the plan for change’s priority of 1.5 million new homes, the Deputy Prime Minister has already identified that as a great opportunity for the Government. Working with partners in Network Rail and elsewhere, we can unlock the land adjacent to existing infrastructure for new developments. Some of that was referenced in the part of the Chancellor’s speech about the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, but we are actively looking at opportunities across the country as well.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury did a good job of name-checking places across the country that might benefit from growth, except not once did he mention anywhere in the south-west. He is the Member for Bristol North West, so why is that? Does he have no confidence in the potential of the south-west? Will he redeem himself by visiting Trowbridge, the county town of Wiltshire, and specifically the Tech Trowbridge initiative, which is trying to create the conditions for growth? The Government might like to be involved in that.

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Member is confused. I am enormously proud of my region of Bristol and the south-west, not least because of our heritage and the potential that we have to offer the country. The aerospace industry in north Bristol will benefit enormously from our announcements, which is great for workers and businesses in our region. He may be interested in an announcement from the national wealth fund today of investment in the Cornish economy to get us mining again, so that we get the rare earth materials that we need to fuel development in the UK and create the jobs and investment in the south-west that he asks for.

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

Barriers to growth were in place in this country for so long that I thought they would be permanent, but we have a Government so committed to growth that they are tearing them down daily, and I welcome that. I also welcome the pilot announced by the Office for Investment, which will benefit the Liverpool city region. It brings Government and industry together to unlock private investment. How will that benefit my constituents in Wirral West?

[Darren Jones]

Today we have announced that the Office for Investment, which partners with foreign direct investment into the UK, will be given a line of sight to opportunities across the country, and not just to the large project that the Government are interested in on a particular day. Working with mayors in our combined authorities will be a great way to bring together a prospectus of investable propositions for investors across the country. Let me reassure my hon. Friend that the blockers to delivery are not permanent, because we voted them out at the last election.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I am sure that the Chief Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but the only three words about Scotland in his statement are “Glasgow city region”. They are welcome, but does he appreciate that while the Scottish Government may have received its biggest settlement, every UK Government statement that has come out of this place since the general election has undermined support in Scotland for this Government? In my city of Edinburgh, we are concerned that every statement on investment in AI and research leaves us out. Down the line, expansion at Heathrow will mean more air traffic over our city, and there is no emissions management plan in place. Will the Chief Secretary reassure my constituents that there is something in this for Edinburgh?

[Darren Jones]

I am not sure I agree with the premise of the question. We do not seek to undermine Scotland, but to enable it, as an important part of the United Kingdom. That is why we have put significant money into the Scottish Government, why GB Energy will be based in Scotland, and why exciting plans on energy infrastructure have already been announced. I am sure there will be more to come, not least for Edinburgh, given its expertise in the technology space, which we are very aware of. I encourage the hon. Lady not to be so gloomy. We are here to support Scotland as much as England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

After a decade and a half of dithering by the Conservatives, who claim to be the best yet constrain the vital forces of positive economic change, it falls to a Labour Government to unleash our country’s potential, which requires Government action in partnership with others. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in order to deliver the growth that our people need, we must block the blockers and vanquish vested interests, and that it is time, to coin a phrase, to build, baby, build?

[Darren Jones]

I am pleased to announce to the House today the Government’s commitment to build, baby, build. We will deliver that for this country. My hon. Friend is right to point out the difference that a change in Government can make. This Labour Government are getting on with the job of dealing with planning regulations and blockers, bringing forward investment and delivering for the country, whereas the Conservative party promised the earth and delivered nothing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Dr Kieran Mullan—I assume you have a lot to say.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Away from Labour’s rhetoric, I suspect that Members on both sides of this House are hearing the reality from our constituents. On Friday, I visited Saxonwood care home in my constituency, and St Michael’s hospice just across the border, which looks after my constituents. I have also heard from Bexhill chamber of commerce, and they are all clear that Labour’s planned national insurance rise will do enormous damage to their attempts to grow, and to employ people. Does the Chief Secretary agree with the OBR’s forecast that the jobs tax will harm growth, not help it?

[Darren Jones]

As has been rehearsed repeatedly on the Floor of the House, the Chancellor had to make difficult decisions to get a grip on the public finances, given the state in which the hon. Member’s party left this country. Today’s announcement makes it very clear that businesses small and large and this Government share the ambition of delivering growth for the economy. That is why we are going further, faster in pursuit of that.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

Making our economy work for people across this country is vital after 14 years of Conservative mismanagement, but the New Economics Foundation has found that expanding the UK’s airports would not deliver serious economic growth. Meanwhile, analysis by Carbon Brief shows that offsetting expansion at Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton would require a forest twice the size of London. Our climate goals would be in jeopardy. Is it realistic to expand Heathrow and other airports and still meet our climate obligations? Is the risk to our future really worth it?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend knows that I have long been an advocate and campaigner for climate justice and our net zero plans, but I am clear that by working with partners and investors to unlock investment in the UK, we will also unlock investment in the net zero transition, and get the industry, the jobs and the capabilities that we need to deliver a net zero future. That will allow people across the country to do other things that they want to do, such as go on holiday.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

As I listened to the Chief Secretary declare that this is all about putting our country on a new path towards a brighter future, I was reminded of a wee song that we used to sing when we were children: “There is a happy land, but it’s far, far away.” Unfortunately, many of these projects are long term. They will not be delivered even in the lifetime of this Parliament, and they will not offset the anti-growth policies that the Government have already announced, which are devastating industry.

The Chief Secretary said that he wants to deliver for people in every part of the country, but there was not one mention of a project in Northern Ireland, or any indication of what the Government will do with the anti-growth impacts of the protocol and the Windsor framework. What is there in the statement for the people of Northern Ireland and for growth prospects in Northern Ireland?

[Darren Jones]

We always get a bit grumpy as we get older, don’t we, Madam Deputy Speaker? But I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: we should go back to our childhoods and sing the song of that bright future that is ahead for all of us. It will cheer our spirits and lift the House as we look forward to the future with positivity.

Look, we have made announcements today that will benefit the Northern Ireland economy, not least in the aerospace, life sciences and pharmaceutical sectors. On a recent visit to Northern Ireland, I heard about the businesses innovating and investing in these spaces, and they will benefit from the announcements today. As he knows, the Government are in negotiations with our counterparts in Europe to improve trade barriers, which I am sure, in time, will benefit the Northern Ireland economy as well.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

It has been a joy to have apprentices from Rolls-Royce Submarines, in my constituency, in Parliament this week, especially in the wake of the £9 billion investment the Government made in Rolls-Royce last week. Does the Chief Secretary agree that it is only by working with manufacturing companies like Rolls-Royce that we will deliver the economic growth we badly need?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. We need businesses to invest, train and employ, and to sell their goods and services. The Government’s partnership working with Rolls-Royce is a great example of how we have been able to unlock billions in investment not just for the region, but for its exports around the world.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

Whether it be the drastic reduction in business property relief and agricultural property relief, which will decimate many family businesses, or the increase in employer national insurance, which will negatively impact all businesses, including the GP surgeries in Keighley that have told me they are now deciding to freeze recruitment, or the increase in the minimum wage or in business rates, or, perhaps, the Employment Rights Bill, which will cost businesses £45 billion a year, will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury say, in his statement on growing the economy, which of these measures he thinks will grow the economy most?

[Darren Jones]

From the nature of his question, I am not sure the hon. Gentleman enjoyed the statement today. Look, there are lots of examples today, both in this statement and in the Chancellor’s commitment, that have stimulated investment and, as a consequence, will stimulate growth in the economy. The key question here is: are businesses seeing the UK as a place to invest, are they investing in the country, and are they building in Britain? The answer is: yes, yes, and yes.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

We have today heard a full-throated commitment from the Treasury to the Teesside’s sustainable aviation fuel industry. I thank the Treasury for listening to Teesside MPs on the revenue certainty mechanism, which will unlock millions of pounds of investment in the industry from companies such as Alfanar and Iogen. Will the Chief Secretary deliver a message from the Dispatch Box to SAF investors the world over that Teesside is open for business?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend and all my hon. Friends from the Teesside region, who have campaigned hard for investment in their area. I visited the plant in question when I was Chair of the Business Committee in the former Parliament, and I remember clearly the company saying how frustrating it was that the previous Government would not allow them to invest and grow the development of sustainable aviation fuel, but were instead allowing it to be imported at cost from other countries. This Government are taking a different approach, which is unlocking investment and jobs in Teesside, and across the country, in the interests of working people.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

I welcome the Chief Secretary’s commitment to investing in my Oxfordshire constituency, and particularly in our science centres of Milton Park, Culham and Harwell campus. However, the commitment to the south east strategic reservoir option—SESRO—will be met with far more questions, given Thames Water’s track record. On 15 January 2025, in New Civil Engineer, a water engineer suggested that the reservoir’s £2.2 billion cost could be much better spent tackling leaks and reducing water demand and waste. Will the Chief Secretary meet me to discuss these unanswered questions about the reservoir?

[Darren Jones]

The Environment Secretary, working with the regulator Ofwat, has agreed the largest investment in the water industry on record, with more than £100 billion over the years ahead to tackle issues with sewage and leaks in the Victorian infrastructure, and, crucially, for the first time in decades, to actually build a reservoir, which this country needs. That is why it is important that we have announced those two plans today. They will, of course, go through the normal processes, and I am sure he will be paying attention to that as they come forward.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I enthusiastically welcome the Government’s commitment to growth and commend them for taking the difficult decisions required to generate it. It is important that all parts of our country benefit from the proceeds of growth. In my capacity as a Leeds MP and chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire, I ask the Chief Secretary how the national wealth fund and the strategic partnership in West Yorkshire will benefit my region through growth agreements and, crucially, sharing the proceeds of growth.

[Darren Jones]

These partnerships with the national wealth fund are crucial to ensure that local entrepreneurs, businesses and investors have access to the services provided by the Government. Too often, it is only people who know how the system works or who know the people involved who can get deals done, which means that people, especially in the regions, have historically lower levels of investment than companies, in particular in London. That is why we want to ensure the door is open to entrepreneurs and investors in areas of high growth potential, including in Leeds, so they can get their businesses growing and delivering for the UK economy.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It has been interesting listening to the statement on growing the UK economy, when everything the Labour Government have done so far is having the exact reverse effect. In Epping Forest, businesses and vital services are talking about job losses and a freeze in recruitment due to the jobs tax, while across the country, family farms and businesses are worried about their futures, with the Government’s heartless inheritance tax policies, children are having to move school and some independent schools are having to close due to the punitive school fees policy. When will this Government admit they have got things wrong and, for the sake of opportunity and growth, reverse their ill-judged policies?

[Darren Jones]

Just to reassure the hon. Gentleman, I will point to three things he may wish to look at: in its long-term forecast, the OBR forecasted growth increasing in this country, unlike what he has said; the International Monetary Fund has just upgraded the growth projections for the UK; and PwC just released a report showing that for the first time ever, the UK is the second most investable country in the world. I hope the hon. Gentleman welcomes those things.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Almost a decade ago, I had the interesting experience of working for the Labour party on aviation policy and, on Heathrow, the fundamentals have not changed. The exhaustion of that sovereign hub capacity is offshoring our emissions and is a stopper on growth in every part of the country. Does the Chief Secretary agree that this decision is long overdue? In respect of comments from those on the Opposition Front Bench, will the Chief Secretary also confirm that in the two months since the Budget, redundancies as notified by employers are down by 20% compared with the same period under the previous Conservative Government?

[Darren Jones]

Well, I thank my hon. Friend for coming to the House today to inform us of those interesting statistics—I am sure Opposition Members are listening closely. He is right: behind the support for the plans for Heathrow coming forward is not only that we think that we are losing investment and jobs to other countries, but that we are offshoring the emissions of goods being brought in from around the world via other places before they come the UK by other means. That is why we think this plan is good for the country but can also be in line with our net zero commitments. As I say, those details will be set out further in due course.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

It was heartening to hear the Chief Secretary talk about the importance of inclusive growth in every nation and region of the United Kingdom, and that regional growth will be hardwired into the comprehensive spending review and the Government’s infrastructure plans. However, he will be aware that such promises have previously been made to areas such as Ceredigion Preseli, but remain unfulfilled. Will the Chief Secretary therefore explain what investment the people of mid and west Wales can expect to see under his Government’s plans?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and his campaigning on behalf of his constituents. As I am sure he will have seen, the Government recently announced hundreds of millions of pounds of inward investment for skills in the green economy in his side of Wales, in Pembrokeshire, where there is enormous potential both for onshore and offshore wind development, and training people to be able to build those bits of infrastructure. That was the first of what I am sure will be many announcements to benefit his constituents.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Kanishka Narayan (Vale of Glamorgan) (Lab)]

Harold Wilson said:

“The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery.”

Today, we can add to that the Tory party. Will the Chief Secretary ditch that Tory past, seize the spirit of Wilson and bring the white heat of technology back to Britain’s shores, including an AI growth zone in the Vale of Glamorgan?

[Darren Jones]

Pithy, Madam Deputy Speaker! Yes, I completely endorse my hon. Friend’s question. He knows very well that in the technology space there are huge opportunities for investment in the UK. Our AI investment zone announcement will be the first of many such announcements in the years ahead.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I thank my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), for campaigning so tirelessly to bring Universal Studios to my constituency. Constituents in Mid Bedfordshire and across the country will be surprised not to hear the Government back Universal Studios. Will the Minister confirm when he intends to conclude negotiations with Universal Studios and come back to the House with an update?

[Darren Jones]

I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date, because negotiations are, as he will know, negotiations. They are ongoing, but I am hopeful that we will be able to come back shortly with updates to show that we are able to deliver deals much faster than his party, when it was last in government.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank Ministers, on behalf of Dartford residents, for the announcement from the Chancellor this morning that the lower Thames crossing is getting the green light from the Government. That will unlock growth across the UK economy, the Thames estuary and Kent itself, as well as relieving the misery Dartford residents currently experience at the Dartford crossing. Is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury able to update residents on what work the Treasury is doing to pull the private finance package together to make it a reality?

[Darren Jones]

I support my hon. Friend’s encouraging words on the Chancellor’s announcement on the lower Thames crossing. The Treasury is working with the Department for Transport and the project leaders for the lower Thames crossing, and I suspect we will have more to say in the coming months.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury articulates a vision whereby the Government are committed to facilitating business investment, generating jobs and opportunities. However, I would welcome his comments on what the Government are doing to support small businesses which form the backbone of our economy, especially in my constituency where we have over 600 small businesses.

[Darren Jones]

As the hon. Member will know, at the Budget, in our design of the national insurance contribution scheme for employers, we protected small businesses to ensure that over 50% of businesses will pay either the same as they did before or less than they did before in employer national insurance contributions. That is in addition to a permanent discount on business rates for retail businesses on the high street, many of whom will be small businesses of the nature he refers to in his question.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that today’s announcement on Heathrow sends a serious signal to international investors, trading partners and Scottish exporters—for example, many tens of thousands of tonnes of Scottish salmon go through Heathrow every year—that the Government will choose growth? Does he agree that, unlike the Conservative party and the gloom and doom from the SNP, we will bring growth to the Scottish economy?

[Darren Jones]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. This is a Government who are willing to act in the interests of the UK economy. Investors around the world are taking note, as the Chancellor heard at Davos. They know that Britain is back, Britain wants to build and we are here to do business.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his truly encouraging statement. I would be churlish to say anything other than well done. However, as he will know, we have an issue in Northern Ireland. Economic output increased in Northern Ireland by 8.1% above 2019 pre-pandemic levels, but we are not yet close to our potential. An important factor in business growth is confidence. However, there is an obstacle. Will he outline how businesses in Northern Ireland can be confident, when we are still entangled in the protocol-supplied red tape that prevents good deals and hampers small and medium-sized businesses throughout the Province?

[Darren Jones]

We share the hon. Member’s ambition for the Northern Ireland economy and the people of Northern Ireland. We continue to work with them to unleash that potential. In respect of our trading relationship with the EU, Ministers are in active discussions right now.

[Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)]

I had the pleasure of welcoming the Minister to my constituency at the weekend. Will he outline how the national wealth fund will establish partnerships in regions such as Essex, including in my constituency?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend. As he has seen from announcements today, but also from our ambition for the country more generally, we are on the hunt for growth opportunities, wherever they may be. We worked in partnership with business investors to unleash their potential to generate great jobs, businesses and innovations for UK plc in every region of the nation. I look forward to working with him and his friends in the region to ensure that that comes to his constituency too.

[Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)]

I was proud to set up the Labour growth group, now ably chaired by colleagues, to demonstrate that we on the Labour Benches are the party of builders, not blockers. I was struck to hear the Leader of the Opposition say it herself today: she said, almost mockingly, that the Conservatives could have taken all the decisions the Chancellor made today, but they did not. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that that about sums it up? In the end, they always put their party management before the national interest.

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his leadership of the Labour growth group, which shows that from the Back Benches all the way through to the Front Bench, this Labour party in government is committed to stimulating growth in the economy in the interests of working people, unlike the Conservative party which just argued with itself for years and failed the people.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Yesterday evening, I had the privilege of meeting some leaders of our ceramics industry, a vital sector that was grossly neglected by the previous Conservative Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our heavy industries, such as metals and chemicals, are where the UK has a competitive advantage, can attract international investment, and can deliver the growth in jobs that people voted for in places from Stoke to Stockton?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

Those sectors are important not just for UK plc, but for communities such as my hon. Friend’s. It is right that we support those businesses and the workers in those industries to develop opportunities to grow and invest, as well as to work through the transition required to ensure that they are sustainable for the future. That is exactly what the Government will be doing.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

For 14 years the Conservatives ignored the economic needs of communities across the Hexham constituency, including the Tyne valley. Businesses and young people in my constituency are desperate to grow, invest and remain there. Will my right hon. Friend agree to come to my constituency and meet businesses to see the growth opportunities in the Tyne valley?

[Darren Jones]

I have a growing list of invitations, Madam Deputy Speaker. I look forward, if my diary manager allows me, to going to my hon. Friend’s constituency. He will know that the transport connectivity and the house building targets in our plan for growth are crucial to ensuring that people are able to seize opportunities where they are from, without necessarily having to leave where they are from and find opportunities elsewhere in the country. That is what inclusive growth looks like.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury please confirm that the development consent order has not yet been granted for the lower Thames crossing, and that it will not necessarily go ahead without mitigations and protections for the residents in Gravesham, such as on local air quality issues, skills and training hubs in Gravesham, free and discounted travel for Gravesham residents, and the impact on the local roads? Will those issues absolutely be considered going forward, and will he meet me to discuss them?

[Darren Jones]

I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend, who is doing a brilliant job, as the local MP, to ensure that these projects are done properly. I can confirm that, of course, all appropriate processes, including on the development consent order, will be undertaken in due course.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

The Minister and the Chancellor are absolutely right that more growth means more pounds in people’s pockets, which is exactly what we were elected to deliver and what the Conservatives failed to do for years and years. The west midlands is a car manufacturing heartland and I was delighted about the big investment today in electric vehicle infrastructure. Will the Minister say more about how it will be great for EVs, great for the green transition and brilliant for the people of the west midlands?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent question and for highlighting the important role the west midlands plays in our important automotive sector. As the House knows, we want to transition over time to electric vehicles. That means investing in jobs, skills, industrial capacity and, crucially, bringing down the cost of EVs, including the charging infrastructure that people rely on. That is what our announcement today will help to do.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s announcements today, in particular on the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough are an economic powerhouse for our country. What we often find is that spin-out businesses from Cambridge look to move to Peterborough as they grow, because of our expertise in advanced manufacturing and logistics. Does the Chief Secretary agree that, with the benefits the growth corridor will bring, it is also vital that we bring in the expertise from Peterborough and utilise the increased transport connectivity to do that?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. The growth corridor is an important enabler not just for developments along the railway, but for the whole region, as we see from other countries that get such projects right—for example, the Chancellor referred to silicon valley—where the opportunities for the broader region are made available. I am sure they will be available to the people of Peterborough, too.

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Newcastle International airport, located both in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), is crucial for connecting businesses and people in the north-east to the rest of the world, often by flying via other hub airports. Does the Minister agree that increased capacity at Heathrow will provide vital opportunities for the north-east, boosting economic growth for the entire country? And while he is visiting the Tyne valley, if he wants to pop over and see what was recently awarded the title of the world’s best airport, we would give him a great welcome.

[Darren Jones]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her airport and look forward to seeing it in due course. The premise of her question is entirely right: if businesses are to export, they need to be able to send their goods, and if they cannot get slots at Heathrow to enable those goods to be distributed around the world, they will just not be able to do business. This Government will unlock that opportunity for them, and I look forward to the potential that it will bring to her constituency and the region.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

Is it not the case that this Government have, to coin a phrase, a “build, baby, build” approach—as, indeed, has been confirmed by my right hon. Friend—unlike the blockers on the opposite Benches? Can my right hon. Friend also confirm that there is an active private sector interest in the lower Thames crossing, and will he give us a timetable for its progress as soon as possible for the benefit of those living in Kent and Essex?

[Darren Jones]

I have to confess that “build, baby, build” was not included in the “lines to take” this morning, but perhaps it is now.

My hon. Friend asked about private capital. We know that there is an enormous amount of interest in investing in the UK, so long as we can show that we can deliver and get things done, and we are working actively with partners to do just that. More details will be confirmed in the spending review and the infrastructure strategy early in June.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement and congratulate my right hon. Friend on it, but may I ask him for some reassurance? When we are looking at strategies for logistics, will we consider the importance of our ports, adopt a proper national strategy for making the most of them, and ensure that our coastal communities can be part of that growth strategy and that our economy is rebalanced towards those communities?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; our ports play a really important role in the UK economy—I declare an interest in respect of my own constituency. She will, I am sure, have welcomed initial Government investment in our ports, not just for trade and logistics but for our ability to deliver infrastructure—for example, in floating offshore wind. I know that the Government have more plans in this area, and more announcements will be made soon.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

I was very pleased to hear about the ambitions for the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, which will create great opportunities for my constituents. I was particularly pleased to note the emphasis on infrastructure, including the East-West Rail link, and I would love to see a rail link from Aylesbury to Milton Keynes and on to East West Rail in due course. Does the Chief Secretary agree that good transport infrastructure of this kind is critical to growing our economy?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; both mass transit within city regions and intercity connectivity link people with jobs and opportunities, which is why it is a crucial part of our growth mission. We will give further details later this year of how we will unlock investment in the sector and provide jobs for people throughout the country.

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

For too long we have been held back by the Conservatives’ dither, delay and indecision over Heathrow expansion. A third runway will strengthen Heathrow’s hub status and make it easier for Scots to connect to the world and bring tourists to our shores. Increased connectivity will also make it easier for Scottish exporters of world-class products such as Aberdeen Angus beef, Orkney seafood and Glenmorangie and Ardbeg whisky—bottled in my constituency—to grow their businesses. Does the Chief Secretary agree that what has been announced today will be significant for my Livingston constituents, as well as growing our economy right across the United Kingdom?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent case for the positive impacts that this will have on the Scottish economy and the important role that it plays in our United Kingdom economy in respect of growth across every nation and region. It is a nice contrast, might I say, with voices opposite that were talking down the potential for Scotland—unlike this Government, who are delivering the potential for Scotland.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

The manufacturer Alexander Dennis proudly builds innovative British electric buses in Scarborough—I think this might be a case of a “build, baby, build British buses.” Does the Chief Secretary agree that British manufacturing and buying British goods are key to our economic growth?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is right, and she is a great advocate for businesses in her constituency. She will know that Mayors in the UK, for example, have committed themselves to buying electric buses from British manufacturers, and we will be working with mayoral authorities in the years ahead to ensure that we can do more of that, not less.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

It is good to hear the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor talk about removing barriers to growth, but in Gateshead we have a literal barrier to growth: 400 tonnes of concrete in the Gateshead flyover, which is currently closed because it is unsafe. As yet the money to replace this has not been forthcoming, even though it would unlock housing and the redevelopment of Gateshead’s town centre. Can the Chief Secretary assure me that projects of this kind, in Gateshead and across the country, will be prioritised as a way of unlocking further growth in the economy?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case. Let me encourage him to write to the Transport Secretary and copy me into his correspondence, so that we can look at the details and consider it further.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

Officials told the Public Accounts Committee on Monday that nutrient neutrality rules were blocking the creation of new prison spaces, and the same rules are blocking the building of 150,000 homes. Will the Chief Secretary commit to speeding up the Government’s review of those rules?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and congratulate him on his upcoming paternity leave. He knows that the Government are committed to protecting the environment but also to cutting red tape. We have shown that that can be done in a win-win way, through the nature fund announced by the Environment Secretary recently. We will be doing further work on this issue in the coming months to ensure that we can deliver for Britain and for the natural economy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The Chief Secretary has been on his feet for nearly an hour and a half. He has a long visit list, and obviously he will want to visit Sussex Weald first and foremost.

Oral Answers to Questions

Darren Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

2. What the fiscal circumstances are that would allow official development assistance to return to 0.7% of gross national income.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)]

The Government remain committed to restoring ODA spending to 0.7% of GNI as soon as fiscal circumstances allow. The latest OBR forecasts show that the ODA fiscal tests are not due to be met within this Parliament, but we will continue to monitor future forecasts closely and each year we will review and confirm, in accordance with the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015, whether a return to spending at 0.7% of GNI on ODA is possible.

[Emily Darlington]

I thank the Minister for protecting the level of ODA given the fiscal situation we inherited, but there are more wars going on in the world than at any time since world war two. Will he review the fiscal formula, which he and the Chancellor rightly voted against when put forward by the previous Government, put the ODA budget on a long-term settlement, and meet me to discuss how we can improve UK safety through the ODA budget?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question on a topic that I know she has great expertise in. She will know that it is important that spending across Departments, whether on military, humanitarian or economic support, is aligned with our ODA spending. The multi-year spending review is under way, and we will confirm budgets in June for the years ahead. As I have confirmed, we will come back to the House every year to review and confirm the fiscal tests as they relate to 0.7% of GNI on ODA.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

Given that the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that the fiscal test of returning to 0.7% will not be met in this Parliament, and that there has been no equivalent uplift to the £2.5 billion that the Conservatives put to spend on in-country refugee costs, are the Minister and this Labour Government content to have presided over a real-terms cut to the ODA budget compared with the previous Conservative Government?

[Darren Jones]

One of the issues, to which the hon. Lady alludes, is that under the last Administration, when they lost control of the borders and the asylum system, the cost of hotels to house asylum seekers waiting for their decision was included in the ODA definition of spending. That is why the Home Secretary is working at pace to reduce that backlog as quickly as possible, and we are making much more significant progress than the previous Administration did in many years.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

To follow on from the Minister’s answer, Members will be reminded of the fact that ODA costs spent in the UK are now at record levels, thanks to the last Government. That should not be the case. ODA should be spent, as much as possible, in the world’s poorest countries. What steps are the Government taking to help the Home Office bring down those costs so that more aid can be spent where it is truly needed?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why both dealing with the Home Office backlog in processing claims and returns and working with counterparts in the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the tribunal process is up to speed are intrinsically important to the ODA budget. Under the last Administration, crucial ODA for bilateral aid in countries around the world that were in desperate need of it was cut at short notice because of their mishandling of the asylum system. That will not happen under this Government.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I know that Members on the Treasury Bench attach great importance to the international development budget, not least because I recall that the Chancellor of the Exchequer supported my efforts to stop the 0.7% being cut by my own Government, even winding up the debate with great skill and flair. Will Treasury Ministers therefore follow in the footsteps of the Chancellor’s predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), and top up the budget with an additional £2.5 billion so that the Foreign Office and the Government can achieve their own international development objectives?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, as I am sure the Chancellor does, for his kind words. A key part of the test on ODA spending in terms of fiscal circumstances requires those circumstances to improve. One of the reasons we are in this problem in the first place is because of the mess the previous Administration left this country in. We are working hard to turn that around.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Helen Maguire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)]

20. What steps she has taken with Cabinet colleagues to uplift former mineworkers’ pensions.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)]

This Government recognise the contributions that miners made to the prosperity of the nation and the challenging circumstances in which they worked. That is why the Government agreed to transfer the investment reserve fund to members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, so that the mineworkers who powered our country receive a fairer pension.

[Richard Baker]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that ending the injustice of the mineworkers’ pension scheme is great news not only for the 849 former mineworkers in my constituency who will benefit, but for the economies of the local communities where they live, which were left behind by the previous Government? Will he and his colleagues in government continue to engage with the trustees of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme to ensure that, in the same way, the funds built up in that scheme are used for the benefit of its members?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his work on behalf of his constituents. He may know that, in the previous Parliament, I and colleagues worked on the mineworkers’ pension scheme through the Business and Trade Committee to lay the ground for the initiatives that this Government were quickly able to implement on coming into government. Unfortunately, that work had not yet been done for the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, which is why Ministers are meeting the scheme’s trustees to consider the options.

[Nick Smith]

This is an important issue for south Wales families. My uncle Jacky was a deputy at Cwm Marine pit and my uncle Georgie was a deputy at Oakdale. Sadly, they have now passed, but they were members of the British Coal pension scheme. Many of their mining friends will be in their 80s and 90s, and their pensions deserve uplifting, so will the Minister please commit to making good progress here? Time is running out for the men and women who fired our industrial past.

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that question on an issue that I know is deeply important to him, his constituents and his family, and on which he has worked for many years. The Government are actively considering proposals from the scheme’s trustees, and we will set out the next steps in due course. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry in the Department for Business and Trade will be working on the detail, and I will be meeting her shortly to consider the options.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I have significant former mining areas in the Douglas valley and Upper Nithsdale in my constituency. Constituents there are concerned about the British Coal scheme, because many people in that scheme actually worked underground before being promoted into other jobs. To ensure fairness in the implementation of this Government policy, will the Minister make sure that the timescale on which they are compensated is the same as that for those in the other scheme?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question, and I think “fairness” is the right word. That is why we worked in opposition to try to persuade the last Government to act on the mineworkers’ pension scheme, but we failed because the last Government did not think this was an urgent issue for them to consider. The Labour Government have implemented this change at our first Budget, and that is fairness in action. We will continue to work with trustees of the BCSSS, and we will come back with further options in due course.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us go to the Member for that well-known mining area of Strangford.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Mr Speaker, I spoke to the Minister beforehand, so he knows where I am coming from with my question.

I understand that some families of those affected who have passed away have retired to Northern Ireland, and they deserve their pensions. That being the case, has the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to ascertain the numbers of those in Northern Ireland who will qualify for such pensions, and will he chase up those people to ensure they get the moneys they deserve?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. I am afraid I have not had time to do so since he told me 35 minutes ago that he was going to ask that question, but I have heard it clearly. I will take that away and come back to him in course.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

11. What steps she is taking through the tax system to support SMEs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

T3.   My constituency of Mansfield has more members of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme than any other constituency in the country. Will the Chief Secretary outline the process and questions that need to be satisfied to release the investment reserve fund to the surviving beneficiaries of the scheme?

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, which clearly is important to him and his constituents. I confirmed to the House today that the Minister for Trade in the Department for Business and Trade is working with the trustees of the BCSSS to consider options. I will meet the Minister to look at those options and provide further updates to the House in due course.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

T2. The Local Government Association estimates that the Budget’s increases to employer national insurance contributions will cost local councils an extra £637 million per year. The Government’s funding settlement for councils in relation to that of £515 million will leave them with a gap, putting key services such as social care, pothole repairs and leisure facilities at risk. Will the Chancellor commit to fully finding that gap for local councils, rather than them having to look for savings?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Schools in Westmorland have been told that they will have to meet the costs of teacher pay rises next year, at least in part, from existing funds and by making efficiencies. Does the Chancellor not understand that all that is available to schools in my constituency is sacking teachers and merging classes? Will she instead commit to fully funding the teachers’ pay rise and other cost increases, so that our schools can do the job that they are meant to do?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Gentleman knows that in order for us to restore public finances and put them on a firm foundation, departmental settlements have to reflect the cost of the civil servants they employ; that is how the Departments are working. As the Chancellor has previously confirmed, the Department for Education has received money to cover the cost of running the education system, and the details will be provided to schools in the normal way in due course.

[Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)]

T8.   The Secretary of State for Transport, the Secretary of State for Wales, the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Welsh Government all went on record last week to recognise the previous Government’s low spending on rail infrastructure in Wales. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Government must put that under-investment right, and can she assure me that the Treasury recognises the crucial part that our railways play in economic growth in Wales?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is an important champion for the Welsh economy. Wales can and will play a vital part in our growth mission. Our two Labour Governments continue to work together as we review the position inherited from the Conservative Government, including on rail infrastructure, and decisions will be set out in the spending review in June.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Will the Chancellor advise businesses in my constituency that are having to make staff unemployed and stop expansion plans in order to pay for her increases in employer national insurance contributions?

Public Finances: Borrowing Costs

Darren Jones Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hon. Members]

Where is she?

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)]

I am always grateful to see Conservative Members welcome me to the House.

Financial markets are always evolving, as the shadow Chancellor knows, so there is a long-standing convention that the Government do not comment on specific financial market movements, and I will not break that convention today. Financial market movements, including changes in Government bond or gilt yields, which represent the Government’s borrowing costs, are determined by a wide range of international and domestic factors. It is normal for the price and yields of gilts to vary when there are wider movements in global financial markets, including in response to economic data.

In recent months, moves in financial markets have been largely driven by data and global geopolitical events, which is to be expected as markets adjust to new information. UK gilt markets continue to function in an orderly way. Underlying demand for the UK’s debt remains strong, with a generally well-diversified investor base. The Debt Management Office’s gilt sales operations continue to see strong demand. The latest auction, held yesterday, received three times as many bids as the amount on offer.

The Chancellor has commissioned from the Office for Budget Responsibility an updated economic and fiscal forecast for 26 March incorporating the latest data. Only the OBR’s forecast can accurately predict the effect on the public finances of any changes in financial markets or the economy, and I will not pre-empt that forecast. There should be no doubt of the Government’s commitment to economic stability and sound public finances. That is why meeting the fiscal rules is non-negotiable.

May I end by saying that I am pleased that the shadow Chancellor is holding this Government to account on our stewardship of the economy? It is important that he does so. He will remember when his party crashed the economy with unfunded tax cuts, unrealistic public spending plans and a clear disregard for the consequences on family finances. Families across the country are still paying the price for the Conservatives’ disastrous performance on the economy through higher mortgages and bills. If there was one clear reason why the Conservative party suffered such an historic defeat at the last general election, it was their performance on the economy. That is presumably why the shadow Chancellor himself admitted in December that the lack of trust in the Conservative party’s management of the economy has left a “deep and painful scar” in the pockets of every person across Britain.

Let me tell the House what has changed. In our first six months, this Labour Government have exposed the £22 billion black hole in the public finances. Not only have we exposed it, but we have dealt with it: the Chancellor’s autumn Budget protects working people, wipes the slate clean of the mess the Conservative party left the country in, and invests in our NHS and schools. We have given the independent Office for Budget Responsibility enhanced powers of oversight, in law, so that we never again get into the situation where that lot left the country: a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. We have set tough new fiscal rules that are non-negotiable, with a budget settlement for public services that they must all live within. We have kick-started growth in this country—this Government’s No. 1 mission —by unlocking investment and bringing forward reforms, such as those to planning and in the Mansion House speech.

May I say to the shadow Chancellor that that work stands in stark contrast to the negligent and shameful horror of a circus performance that the Conservative party in government unleashed on this country only a few years ago? Until he can come to the House with an apology for the British people, I will not take any lectures from the Conservative party about how to run the economy.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[Mel Stride]

The performance we have just seen was a slightly anxious and breathless one, which leads me to the question: where is the Chancellor? It is a bitter regret that at this difficult time and given these serious issues, she herself is nowhere to be seen.

In the last 48 hours, borrowing costs have reached a 27-year high, and it is the Chancellor’s decisions that have led us here. Before the election, the right hon. Lady promised that Labour would get debt falling, would not fiddle the figures, would not raise taxes and would grow the economy, but the economy is now flatlining. Survey after survey is showing that business confidence has simply evaporated, and at the Budget, the Chancellor hiked up taxes, increased borrowing by an average of £32 billion a year across the forecast, and conveniently adjusted her fiscal rules to allow her to do so.

Higher debt and lower growth are understandably now causing real concerns among the public, among businesses and in the markets, and despite what the Chief Secretary has said about international factors, the premium on our borrowing costs compared with German bonds recently hit its highest level since 1990. With those rising costs, regrettably, the Government may now be on course to breach their fiscal rules. The Chancellor has committed to no further tax rises, so does the right hon. Gentleman stand by her commitment not to increase taxes even further? If so, does that mean that the public should expect cuts to public service spending if the OBR judges that her fiscal headroom has evaporated?

There are media reports that the Chancellor will make an emergency intervention to soothe markets, but with no confirmation that such a statement will occur in this House. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that any such statement will be made first to Members in this House? Rates on Government bonds ultimately feed through to the broader credit market, so what estimates has the Treasury made of how recent market movements will impact mortgage costs and lending across the economy?

I will make one final point, Mr Speaker. Every pound that we spend on debt interest is money that we cannot spend on the public’s priorities. The Government’s decision to let rip on borrowing means that their own tax rises will end up being swallowed up by higher borrowing costs, at no benefit to the British people. Far from this Government laying the foundations for a stronger economy, the Chancellor is squandering the endeavours of millions of hard-working people up and down our country, who are now having to pay the price for yet another socialist Government taxing and spending their way into trouble. Does the right hon. Gentleman not now accept that it is time to change course?

[Darren Jones]

I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman enjoyed my performance—I have not even had my first cup of coffee yet this morning. Let me answer some of his questions. [Interruption.] Conservative Members might like to listen, if the questions are so important to them.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the fiscal rules. As I said in my statement, those rules are non-negotiable. As the Chancellor set out at the Budget, we have two fiscal rules: first, that day-to-day spending should be met by tax receipts, and secondly, that debt should be falling as a share of the economy.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the debt burden that this country has. Maybe we should reflect a little on why we have so much debt—[Interruption.] From pre-pandemic, Mr Speaker. Let us look at the burden of debt inherited by this Government from the Conservatives. From 2010 onwards, why did the last Government have to borrow so much money every single month, not just to invest but to pay the day-to-day bills? Because of an absolute failure to get growth into the economy. They could not make the numbers add up. They stacked up the country’s credit card and left it to the Labour party to deal with, and we are going to deal with it. That is why those fiscal rules are non-negotiable, and it is why public spending will be within the numbers set out at the Budget.

We are starting the spending review now, and it will conclude in June. Public services will have to live within their means—the Chancellor has been very clear about that. That is why with this Government, you get economic stability and absolute clarity on public spending. That is why the British people trust this party and booted that lot out of office.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

We all know that fiscal rules and certainty are vital for the markets and the good stewardship of the public finances, so will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury explain what process he will be going through as he conducts the spending review, and what notice he will give to Departments about extra cuts that they may have to make in order to meet the fiscal rules? In addition, when the Chancellor comes in front of the House for the OBR forecast in March, will she be making a fiscal statement at that point?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her question. As the House knows, we have started the second phase of the spending review, to set public sector budgets from 2026-27 onwards. The Chancellor confirmed in a written ministerial statement before the House rose for Christmas that there will be a forecast from the OBR and a statement on 26 March. As I said in my response, that will be the next time the OBR will give a view about the UK economy and the levels of funding for public services. Between the OBR forecast in March and the conclusion of the spending review in June, the House will be updated in the normal way.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I recognise that the Chancellor has a very difficult job. She inherited an economy on its knees, following the Conservatives’ mismanagement of the economy, from their terrible trade deal—[Interruption.] That extends from their terrible trade deal with Europe, which is holding back businesses in Wokingham, to soaring inflation, stagnant growth and the Liz Truss mini-Budget, which hit so many mortgage holders across the country.

However, the Government seem to be repeating some of the same mistakes. Last night, the Treasury issued a statement saying that

“meeting the fiscal rules is non-negotiable”.

Will the Chief Secretary reassure this House that protecting the NHS and care is also non-negotiable, and will he rule out any cuts to those services as the Government try to balance the books? Will he work to repair our ties with Europe and cut trade-related red tape, especially in the face of Donald Trump and his oligarch allies such as Elon Musk?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. He will note from the Prime Minister’s plan for change that the NHS is the subject of one of this Government’s key commitments, with commitments to get the elective waiting list down and to invest in the national health service so that we can do so. He will have heard that from the Chancellor at the Budget in the autumn, and he will see that it is a continued commitment from this Government. We can do that because of our commitment to the fiscal rules and because of our investment to grow the economy, which is the only route to long-term, sustainable public financing.

The hon. Member was very rudely groaned at by Conservative Members, but when it comes to their performance on the economy, it is not they who should be groaning, but the British people who should be groaning at them for what they did to their family finances.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

US bond rates are rising as well as those in the UK, with higher than expected inflation and interest rates. I note that Conservative Members have not mentioned that; perhaps they have not looked. The best way to make our debt sustainable is to invest to get growth growing, and to get expected inflation down by investing in clean energy. Does the Minister agree that our plans to invest in growth and in lower-price, cleaner energy is exactly the way to make our debt sustainable?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend knows very well that this Government’s approach has been about stability, investment and reform: the stability we have brought following the chaos of the years under the Conservative party, as has been recognised by the British people and by the markets; the investment we have been unlocking, from our global investment summit all the way through to the work we have been doing in the Budget and since; and the reforms we are bringing forward—for example, planning reform—to make sure we can deliver infrastructure better in this country and unlock the investment that private capital has wanted to put forward in the UK for many years, but could not because of the chaos from the Conservatives when they were last in government.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On 6 November, the Chancellor said:

“We have now set the envelope for spending for this Parliament, and we are not going to be coming back with more tax increases or, indeed, with more borrowing.”

I am sure, because the Chancellor is an honourable lady, that she will not be opening that envelope, putting her sticky fingers inside and coming out with more borrowing or tax increases. Will the Minister give an absolute assurance of no more tax increases or borrowing?

[Darren Jones]

I can absolutely assure the Father of the House that we are working through this spending review on the basis of the envelope set at the Budget. Public services will have to operate within the means that we are providing to them. The OBR forecast will come in March, which will give us the latest set of information, and we will work to that with Departments. This is why we have set up organisations such as the Office for Value for Money, why we have set tough productivity and efficiency targets for Departments and why we are investing in, for example, technology to improve the productivity of the public services we provide. Public services must live within their means, as set out in the Budget, and that is an absolute guarantee from this Government.

[Torsten Bell (Swansea West) (Lab)]

I thank the Chief Secretary for his response. I have just sat through Transport questions, or some of them, during which I repeatedly heard calls for more spending from Conservative Members, but they oppose every single tax rise to pay for that spending. Does the Chief Secretary agree that one of the lessons from global developments in recent days is that we must pay for day-to-day public spending through tax rises, however tough that is?

[Darren Jones]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We have to pay day-to-day bills with the income we generate day to day. The lesson that we learned from the Opposition was about what they were happy to do, but this Government are not. They were happy to announce plans and programmes to make promises to the British people, even though they knew they did not have the money to pay for it. That will never happen under this Labour Government.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

When the Chancellor set the envelope for spending for this Parliament, and said to the Treasury Committee on 6 November that she would not come back for more tax increases or more borrowing, that was based on her assumptions about the cost of borrowing. Those are manifestly in significant doubt, to look at it in the most charitable way. I have sat in the Chief Secretary’s position, and I know he will want to equivocate and push decisions to the next OBR assessment and the next fiscal event, but the truth is surely this: this Government have to cut spending, increase taxes or borrow more. If the cost of borrowing is increasing, that moment will come sooner. Which of those choices is he inclined to make, and when will he tell the British people honestly what this Government have done?

[Darren Jones]

I have been clear to the House, as has the Chancellor, that the fiscal rules are non-negotiable. Public services will have to live within their means. We set the Budget in the autumn last year, and we have the OBR forecasts coming in March. Those are the numbers that Departments are working to in the spending review, and those are the numbers that we will hold public services to when we conclude the spending review in June.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

We thought we knew the dire economic situation when the general election was called, but on entering government, we found the real consequences of the previous Tory Government’s addiction to unfunded spending announcements. The people of Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West are paying the consequences for the Truss-Kwarteng economic crash. With the imminent entry into the White House of a President also committed to significant unfunded tax cuts, the economic stability of the UK becomes even more important. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this Government are absolutely committed to fiscal responsibility and rising living standards, and that the plan for growth will deliver both?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee for her question. She will know that our first commitment in the Labour party manifesto at the last election was to fiscal responsibility. It is the bedrock of this Government and the bedrock of every decision we take. As the Prime Minister set out in his plan for change, the reason people will know the difference that a Labour Government make is that they will have more money in their pockets by the end of this Parliament than when it started.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

In yesterday’s extraordinary emergency statement from the Treasury to try to calm the markets, it paid tribute to the fact that the Government inherited the second-lowest debt in the G7. Is the reason the Government Front Bench is so empty today and the Chancellor has fled to China that she has realised that her Budget means she now is the arsonist?

[Darren Jones]

I must say I am rather surprised by the inflammatory language of the former Chair of the Treasury Committee, which is clearly no reflection of reality. The Chancellor is going on her trip to China. It has been well documented for many weeks, and it is an important visit for trade and investment in the UK economy. May I say that there was no emergency statement or emergency intervention? Those are make-believe words being propagated by Opposition Members. The Treasury responded to requests from journalists about headroom, as we might do in the normal way. There is no need for any emergency intervention, and there has not been one.

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

One would think, from listening to Opposition Members, that they had not crashed our economy and presided over high taxes, high debts and falling living standards, which affect my constituents and, I expect, some of theirs, too. [Interruption.] That is the Tory cycle. Will the Minister confirm that the route out of that is growth, and that remains our No. 1 mission?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. May I offer some probably unwelcome advice to Opposition Members? The sooner they stop groaning and stop laughing about their performance when they were last in government, and the sooner they apologise for it, the sooner the British people might start listening to them again.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Public services are at breaking point after the previous Government’s mishandling of the economy and budgets locally. However, does the Minister recognise that scaling back investment in vital public services risks even more devastating consequences for our local communities?

[Darren Jones]

At the autumn Budget, the Chancellor invested in frontline public services, because we recognise that people rely on them, but also because functioning public services are an important route to growth in the economy. If people are sick and cannot get to work, they need to be able to see a doctor in a timely fashion, so that they can get back to work. That is the priority of this Government, as well as investing in modernising our public services, so that they are fit for the future.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

My constituents suffered real hardship as a result of the disastrous mini-Budget pursued by the Conservative party. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that in order to improve living standards for my constituents, we must stick to our fiscal rules, maintain fiscal discipline and invest in our public services?

[Darren Jones]

I very much agree. That is why fiscal stability and economic responsibility are at the heart of this Labour Government and the Chancellor’s agenda. Members on the Opposition Benches may want to pay attention to that.

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

There is no point beating around the bush: the Chancellor has just lost over £9.9 billion of headroom, and stands on the cusp of breaking her own fiscal rules. She said last year that she would not come back for more tax rises. Will the Chief Secretary be honest and admit, just as the former Bank of England rate setter Martin Weale said today, that this leaves only the option of more austerity? Will he level with people about when and where the next round of cuts will fall?

[Darren Jones]

As I said, the fiscal rules are non-negotiable. The only reliable sources on future financing will be the OBR forecast on 26 March, the conclusion of the spending review in June, and the Budget, which the Chancellor will present in the autumn. The hon. Gentleman mentioned austerity, but I remind him that this Labour Government have given the Scottish Parliament the largest real-terms increase in funding since devolution. He should be grateful for that.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

This Labour Government have been in power for six months, and we are having to deal with 14 years of Conservative chaos. Does the Chief Secretary agree that the Government’s plan for change, which aims to provide a stable economy and raise living standards in every part of the United Kingdom, and has economic growth as the No. 1 mission, is the right approach to ensure that the United Kingdom can weather the global uncertainty that we face?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let me set out the difference that the British people will experience. At the end of 14 years of Conservative Government, they had higher mortgages, higher bills, a higher cost of living and public services on their knees. At the end of this Labour Government, pointing towards the next general election, as set out in the Prime Minister’s plan for change, they will have more money in their pocket, public services will be functioning again, and they will be proud once again of their Government, and of the British economy.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Having listened very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s responses, I believe that he is making a more significant statement than many of his colleagues might realise. By underlining that there will not be any tax or borrowing increases, he is, in effect, saying that austerity is back, because there is no way that the public finances can be remedied by another Budget of wishful thinking that pretends that increased borrowing and spending will produce growth. That is once again being proved by a Labour Government to be a false way of leading the economy.

[Darren Jones]

I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for thinking that I am making such substantive interventions, and for his continued support in that respect. This is not austerity, as he will know full well. Austerity was ideological cuts to public financing and the size of the state. It was 3% cuts, irrespective of what that meant for public services or for people across the country. That is far from what the Chancellor unveiled in her autumn Budget. That was the absolute opposite of austerity; we increased financing for frontline public services, and will continue to do so.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Will the Chief Secretary outline the steps that this Government have already taken to fix the fiscal foundations and put this country on a stronger footing for growth?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend asks an important question. Why did we have to take that action? Why was this Government’s first Bill about fiscal responsibility? It was because of the mess that Conservative Members left this country in. That is why we have given the Office for Budget Responsibility stronger, independent powers of oversight in statute—something that the shadow Chancellor presumably welcomed, given his comments criticising Liz Truss and her Budget when he was Chair of the Treasury Committee. We brought that change forward, which the Conservative party failed to do. That is why we have set fiscal rules that are non-negotiable, why public services must live within their means, and why the Government’s absolute focus is on securing growth, investment, reform and long-term sustainability for public finances.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Is the Chief Secretary aware that the last two months’ GDP figures, for September and October, are both down? Is he aware that sterling is falling—in fact, almost collapsing? Confidence is falling and investors are fleeing. The only things going up are inflation, wasteful public spending and the cost of debt. Be under no illusion: we are heading towards a financial crisis. Will he ask the Chancellor to return from her ridiculous trip to China, to reverse course, and to cut daft spending and wasteful regulations, so that we can create some growth?

[Darren Jones]

I think the question was whether I was going to demand that the Chancellor come back from her trade trip to China. I will not, no.

[Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)]

Does the Chief Secretary agree that there is an irony in the Conservatives raising concerns about the cost of borrowing, when they oversaw debt rising from 64.7% of GDP to more than 96% of GDP and left a £22 billion unfunded black hole in public finances—and now continue to oppose the tough decisions that we are making on tax and spend to fix their mess?

[Darren Jones]

That is exactly why our fiscal rules are non-negotiable. While the Conservatives borrowed to pay the bills every month because they did not have enough money to pay for all their promises, this Government are investing in the future of our country, whether through reforming public services or investing in infrastructure and opportunities for growth. That is exactly the right approach to the economy; it is what our fiscal rules demand, and what we will be held to.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Next has said that it will increase prices by 1%, directly because of the increases to national insurance contributions, and has warned of slowing growth. With business confidence plummeting, gilts at a 26-year high and growth stagnating, do the Government still maintain that they have an iron grip on public finances, or will they admit that their Budget has done exactly what the Conservatives warned: increase costs, increase prices and reduce growth?

[Darren Jones]

The question was whether the Government have an iron grip on public finances; the answer is yes.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Meur ras ha myttin da, Mr Speaker. Does the Chief Secretary agree that the only way that we can wrest the economy out of the clutches of the Conservatives’ doom loop is to go for growth? The Government’s new industrial strategy will be a core foundation underpinning that growth.

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our industrial strategy, through which we will invest alongside businesses and industries of the future, and our infrastructure strategy, which sets out how we will get Britain building again, are two examples of the Government playing their part by bringing economic and political stability. By, for example, reforming the planning system, we will unlock billions of pounds of private sector investment in UK plc—something that did not happen under the previous Government.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I completely sympathise with the Chief Secretary about the incredible brass neck of the official Opposition. He talks about kick-starting growth, but can he give us any evidence that growth has been kick-started? Does he not realise that the only way to kick-start growth in the near future is to re-engage with Europe?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Gentleman will know that this Government’s approach to stimulating growth in the economy is about stability, investment and reform—the political and economic stability the Chancellor has brought to this country; the investment from private sector partners, as well as from the state, where appropriate; and the reform of policy areas such as the planning system, or the financial services reform that the Chancellor set out in her Mansion House speech. He is also right, of course, that we need to improve our trading relationship with countries around the world, which is why the Chancellor is going to China today, and why we have begun negotiations with our friends in the European Union on how we can improve our relationship on a whole host of issues, including trade, energy, defence and security.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

Does the Chief Secretary agree that the Conservatives, having added gutter politics to their fantasy economics and unfunded spending commitments, can no longer call themselves the party of decency in public life, and of sound money?

[Darren Jones]

Yes.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is deeply disappointing that the Chancellor is not here to answer questions in the House on such an important topic, so I shall have to ask my question to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury instead. It is quite a simple one. Will he stand by the Chancellor’s comment that she will not come back with more tax increases?

[Darren Jones]

I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Member, but I will answer the question none the less. She asked me whether I stand by the Chancellor’s statements, and the answer is yes.

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I want us to get serious for a minute here. [Interruption.] Many of my constituents in North East Derbyshire, who will have just heard the guffawing from the Opposition, have been really struggling with the cost of living crisis. They voted the Government in, and we are committed to restoring the foundations of our economy. Will the Minister assure me that we are doing everything we can to deliver on that promise?

[Darren Jones]

It is absolutely right that the Labour Government are bringing fiscal and economic stability back to this country, because we know that when you play fast and loose with the nation’s finances, you play fast and loose with family finances. That is what voters in every constituency experienced when the Conservatives were last in government. They will not experience that under this Labour Government.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

We are looking at higher interest rates, lower growth and a higher cost of borrowing to the Government; as my hon. and right hon. Friends have said, we are grateful to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for being so honest with the House. It is clear that if he sticks to his word, there will not be any more borrowing, or any more tax rises. Given the numbers, that leaves only one option: cuts in public services. I wonder whether his colleagues behind him on the Government Benches realise that reality. What word other than “austerity” will he use to describe it?

[Darren Jones]

As I have said, it seems that the Conservative party is proud of its record on austerity. We do not support austerity, which was blind ideological cuts to public services—3% cuts—irrespective of the outcome for the people who rely on public services. The Chancellor increased investment in public services at the Budget in the autumn, and we will continue to increase investment in them, because we need to get them back on their feet, and they are an important foundation for economic growth. I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman recognises my statements, and says that they are honest, because of course they are. I look forward to coming back to the House in future months and years to show him the progress that the Government are making.

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a relief for me and my constituents in Doncaster Central that we finally have a Labour Government providing economic stability and investing in the industry of the future. [Interruption.] It is all right for Conservative Members to chunter, but after the mess they made, a period of silence on their part is warranted. Will my right hon. Friend lay out the action that he will take to ensure that all regions of the country, including places like Doncaster and South Yorkshire, benefit from growth?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Government are in the service of working people. What does that mean? It means that people’s lives—the money they have in their pocket, and the ability to pay the bills, get a roof over their head and seek opportunity—are at the very heart of what it means to be in the Labour party and in this Labour Government. Conservative Members might not have suffered from higher mortgage bills or worried about the cost of living during their supermarket shop each month, but people across the country did, and they suffered as a consequence of the Conservatives’ behaviour. I welcome my hon. Friend’s comment that they should have a period of silence while they learn the lessons.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

I think that I heard the Chief Secretary say that the Chancellor has not gone to China. Will he confirm first that she is still planning to go? Secondly, if she has not gone to China yet, why is she not here? Lots of people would like to hear from her. Thirdly, has the Chancellor talked to the Governor of the Bank of England about market turbulence at any point in the last seven days?

[Darren Jones]

The Chancellor is going to China, as has been well documented. Again, I am sorry that it disappoints the hon. Member that I am here. I refer him and his colleagues to the urgent question, which is about a statement on borrowing costs and public finances. He will know that I am the Minister for public finances, which is why I am here answering his questions.

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirm that the Government’s No. 1 mission is still growth? That is the only way that we can break out of the Tory inheritance of low growth, high borrowing, high taxes and squeezed living standards for people in my constituency in Livingston, and across the UK.

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. His constituents will know from their family finances that they cannot just put the bills on the credit card every month without having a plan for how to pay it off. That is not a sustainable way to manage household finances, and it is the same for the country. One of the reasons why we have such a mess left to us by the Conservative party is that it did just that—borrow money every month to pay for the day-to-day bills, and stack up the promises. That is why in the end there were so many promises and not enough pounds to pay for them. That is not a way to run the economy or family finances. That is why fiscal responsibility is at the heart of the approach taken by the Chancellor and the Government. We will never play fast and loose with the nation’s finances, as the Conservative party did.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

According to media reports today, the former Member of Parliament for South West Norfolk is issuing cease and desist letters to those who have accused her of crashing the economy—[Interruption.] I hope I will not get one; Members will be conscious that I am being very careful with my wording. I wonder whether the Chief Secretary might wish to take advantage of parliamentary privilege to compare and contrast the impact of her disastrous mini-Budget with what is being discussed today.

[Darren Jones]

You will correctly tell me, Mr Speaker, that it would not be right for me to comment on legal proceedings, but I am happy to say that one of the huge lessons for the country, for the British voting public and perhaps, one day, for the Conservative party is that the actions that the Conservative party took were not just reckless and negligent, but had a direct impact on public finances in every single constituency. There was a direct connection: it was Conservative Ministers’ hubris, ego and lack of focus on working people that ruined the lives of people across the country. I say that today and I will say it every day, because the British people must never forget the recklessness of the Conservative party.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement—

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

It might have been legitimate for the Conservatives to say that their economic policy was to borrow for day-to-day costs—as they did. That could be a decision that they took. What is not forgivable is the fact that they reached a point at which they were making promises to the British people that they knew they did not have the money to pay for, and that is where the £22 billion black hole came from. They should be ashamed of their record on the economy, and they should apologise to the British people.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

When will the Chief Secretary take responsibility for the actions of his own Government? We had a general election, and that is when the public held the previous Government to account. They gave their verdict, and the Labour party is in power now. What the public want is accountability for this Government’s reckless decisions: the national insurance increases are an attack on jobs; there has been an attack on the farming community; and business confidence is at an all-time low.

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman may not wish to reflect on his party’s performance in government, but I am afraid he has to. Although this is a new Government—we have been in office for six months—the reality is that we are having to clear up the mess that the last Government left us. That is why we have to talk about it, and explain to the country why the actions taken by the Conservative party not only affected family finances, but decimated the British economy and pushed public services on to their knees. We are taking responsibility for clearing up their mess, and that is why we will keep talking about it.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

A key ingredient of economic growth has to be responsible government. People in Stevenage and across the country are still paying the price for 14 years of irresponsible government—the terrible decisions, the mini-Budget—and now we have a party in opposition that still does not get it. Opposition Members responded to this party’s Budget by saying that they accepted the improvement in public services, but they would not say how they would pay for it. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that this Administration will be committed to responsible government for the rest of the parliamentary term?

[Darren Jones]

Yes, I can. There is no denying that the economic inheritance that we were given by the Conservative party makes life very difficult for us: it means that we have to take difficult decisions. The fiscal rules are non-negotiable and public services have to live within their means because that is that the bedrock of any approach in government. Is that going to be easy for us? No, it is not, but it is part of our responsibility in clearing up the mess left by the Conservatives, and from that we can build for the future, as is set out in the Prime Minister’s plan for change.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The issue here is spending. Will the Chief Secretary confirm that the Labour manifesto said that a Labour Government would increase spending by £9.5 billion a year, and the Treasury Red Book is increasing that to £76 billion? Is that not the issue?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

One of the issues was that the Conservative party made a whole list of unfunded spending commitments. They promised hospitals and train stations, they had unsettled pay disputes with public sector workers— I could go on and on. That is why the Chancellor took the decision at the Budget to wipe the slate clean, to deal with the mess that we inherited and then to bring forward the manifesto commitments that we set out at the election. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to see more detail about our public spending plans, he is very welcome to come to my statement in June.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

Conservative Members talk about economic stability, but they seem to have forgotten that they were swapping out Chancellors every five minutes. Does the Chief Secretary agree that it is this Government who are restoring stability to our economy?

[Darren Jones]

Restoring economic and political stability is important. When the markets observed the behaviour of the Conservative party in government, it is no wonder they did not want to invest in the UK, and that is why the market crashed, to the detriment of working people across the country. It is very clear that under this Labour Government, not only do we have stable leadership; we have a stable set of policies in our plan for change and fiscal responsibility as the bedrock for the Chancellor’s action. That is a country people can believe in, trust in and invest in, unlike the country that was left to us by the Conservative party.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

Every Labour Government leave office with unemployment higher and the economy in a worse condition than they inherited, but I think this Labour Government are taking the record for doing that the fastest—within just six months, we see borrowing costs spiralling out of control, GDP growth tanking and the bosses of some of the biggest recruitment firms in the UK warning of job postings plummeting and that a recession is just around the corner. I look forward to seeing how the Chancellor spins this period of employment on her CV in the future. If the Government breach their own fiddled fiscal rules so ingloriously and so quickly, who on the Treasury Bench is going to update their CV and take responsibility?

[Darren Jones]

The fiscal rules are non-negotiable, and they will be met.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the reckless ideological austerity measures taken by the Conservative party in government have directly led to my constituents being significantly worse off and made it harder for them to get on in Darlington? Can he outline the impact that the new Office for Value for Money will have on the huge inefficiencies and waste that the last Government presided over?

[Darren Jones]

The Office for Value for Money is an important part of our spending review process, as we undertake for the first time in 17 years a zero-based review of every single pound of public spending. We should focus on that for a moment: not once under the last Conservative Government was there a zero-based review. Not once did they go line by line through every pound of taxpayers’ money and public spending to check it was being spent in the people’s interests. Not once did they think that was a responsible thing to do. That is the first thing we are doing in government.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

At the back end of last year, borrowing figures were the second highest monthly figures on record. That was in no small part driven by the Chancellor’s decision to give inflation-busting pay rises to unions. Given that we have more union pay negotiations this year, should my constituents be braced for the Government giving into those union demands, at risk to taxpayers?

[Darren Jones]

I think the hon. Member might want to ask his constituents whether they appreciated their doctors and nurses being on strike for so long or whether they wanted them to be able to see their patients. He may want to ask his constituents whether they were grateful to have the trains not working for so many months because the train drivers were on strike. He may want to ask his constituents how pleased they were with the performance of their public services over the last 14 years of government. I think I know the answer they would give him. That is going to change under this Labour Government.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

On the economy, as with so much else, does my right hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members should sip from the elixir of personal responsibility and that the two words we most need to hear from them are, “We apologise”?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Stuart, I need no advice from you. I think you are on the Panel of Chairs, and I need to see some better behaviour if you are going to stay on it.

[Darren Jones]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is important, when you are paid by the House, to act responsibly; I agree with you.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) makes a really important point, and Conservative Members who have their head in their hands may wish to listen to him. It will be important for the Conservatives to apologise for their behaviour before the British people start listening to them again, but for as long as they wish to grunt and groan and claim that everything was wonderful, the better for us, so long may it continue.

[Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I have heard that the Minister is the future, but all he wants to talk about is the past. The fact of the matter is that, today, borrowing costs are up, business confidence is down and growth is going nowhere. Is it not time to admit that this lefty economic experiment is not working? It is time to cut taxes and cut spending.

[Darren Jones]

I did not realise that the hon. Member knew my mum and that I am apparently the future. It is very kind of him to say so; very few have that in their thoughts. He talks about lefty experiments. Fiscal responsibility is not a lefty ideology. Economic responsibility is not a lefty ideological and political experiment; it is what the British people expect. One of the reasons why the Conservatives had such a historic defeat at the last election is that they lost all control and all sense when it came to the public finances. For a party that is supposedly the best-performing in western democracy, and which has had great leaders in the past, is it not a great shame what the Conservative party has become? Given its performance over 14 years and its descent into disinformation, I feel very sorry for Opposition Members.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I hope that the Minister can quickly turn this situation around for my constituents and the country, and I wish him all the best in doing so. Given the challenges of business confidence and the markets, I had hoped that he would come to the House this morning with a plan that lays out the scope of the problem and the solution to fix it. Instead, he has spoken more about the Conservative party, rather than Labour’s plan for the economy. Is that because the Chancellor is not here today? When will she come back?

[Darren Jones]

I am very happy to set out the Government’s plan, as I have done repeatedly today. The hon. Member will have seen in the Chancellor’s Budget last autumn a clear plan to wipe the slate clean, to deal with the mess that we inherited, to protect working people, and to invest in our public services. He will have seen it in the Prime Minister’s plan for change, which sets out the direction of this Government over the years ahead. We will put more money in working people’s pockets across the country, get our public services back on their feet and make sure that this country is in a strong position. The hon. Member will know that the Government are working through our spending review, which I run as the responsible Minister. I have already confirmed that we will come back in June to confirm the spending plans for Departments, which will have to live within their means and in line with the fiscal rules in the years ahead. I cannot think what more he would want.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

Within the last week, has the Chancellor spoken to the Governor of the Bank of England about the impact of soaring borrowing costs?

[Darren Jones]

The Chancellor meets the Governor of the Bank of England on a regular basis and will continue to do so.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

It has been widely reported that the Chancellor now faces a choice between raising taxes or cutting public spending if she is to stay within her non-negotiable fiscal rules. Given reports that she will now conduct group meetings with Ministers, rather than the less combative approach of one-to-one meetings conducted by the right hon. Gentleman, to discuss departmental cuts, it sounds as if Government spending is being dictated by the Ministers with the sharpest elbows. Can he reassure the House that there will not be any departmental cuts?

[Darren Jones]

I am pleased that the hon. Member can afford the subscription to Bloomberg News; I cannot, unfortunately, so I could not read the article to which he refers. He inadvertently asks me a question about the process of the spending review. [Interruption.] That was the question. We are embedding mission-led government, which is what the Prime Minister set out in his missions in his plan for change. That requires Departments to work together to make sure that they are absolutely focused on the delivery of the plan for change priorities, which is why the spending review is being done on a multilateral basis in a new way. I will be giving a speech on this issue in a couple of weeks’ time, and I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman gets an invitation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for all his answers this morning. The UK’s public debt has risen sharply over the decades. At the moment, it is reaching levels not seen in the post-world war two era, meaning that a large proportion of our expenditure is focused on paying back, as opposed to public spending. I always try to be constructive, as the Minister knows. Nowhere will the impact—on health and education, for example—be greater than in Northern Ireland. I have a very specific question for the Minister: what discussions has he had with Departments, and particularly the Finance Department, at the Northern Ireland Assembly?

[Darren Jones]

I lead for the Treasury on inter-ministerial relationships with Finance Ministers in the devolved Governments. I regularly meet my counterparts, and I will meet them in Wales in the coming weeks to talk about our spending plans for the future.

Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

Darren Jones Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. May I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) on his moving ten-minute rule Bill, which he just presented?

The purpose of the Crown Estate Bill is to bring legislation governing the Crown Estate into the 21st century. The Crown Estate is a commercial business, independent from government, that operates for profit and competes in the marketplace for investment, yet it is restricted in its ability to do so by legislation that has not been amended since 1961. With less ability to compete and to invest, it is less able to deliver returns for the public purse than it might otherwise be able to do.

Existing limitations on the Crown Estate’s powers have meant it has had to generate capital for investment by selling its assets, which is neither desirable nor sustainable. Under current legislation, the Crown Estate is constrained in its ability to support sustainable projects and to preserve our heritage for generations to come. These are the reasons why the Bill is necessary and why the Crown Estate has asked successive Governments for reforms.

The Bill has been expanded and improved during its passage in the other place, with requirements relating to sustainable development, GB Energy and the composition of the board. Fundamentally, the changes that the Bill proposes will give the Crown Estate new freedoms, including the power to borrow as their competitors can, enabling them to adopt a sustainable and competitive business model.

The Bill has two key objectives. First, it broadens the scope of activities that the Crown Estate can invest in, in order to support the delivery of its core purpose across net zero, nature recovery, economic growth and generating returns to the public purse. In its current form, it is predominantly a property estate and is significantly limited in its investment options. The Bill would provide it with the ability to invest more widely in new growth opportunities—for example, investing in the further mapping of our seabed. This will enable it to undertake significant de-risking activity, such as pre-consent surveys and supporting grid connections, thus increasing the frequency of leasing for offshore wind and supporting the clean energy transition.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I hope the Minister will not hear much disagreement about the points he is making so eloquently. However, may I query why these provisions and powers, which he believes are relevant for the Crown Estate in England and Wales, are not also being provided to the Crown Estate in Scotland?

[Darren Jones]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Crown Estate Scotland is a separate organisation to the Crown Estate that is the subject of the Bill. Of course, we continue to have conversations and we will be pleased to talk to him and others about that issue for the future.

[Stephen Flynn]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

I will make some progress.

The second objective of the Bill is to enable the Crown Estate to invest in capital-intensive projects more effectively. It does so by empowering the Crown Estate to reduce the size of the cash reserves it needs to hold, thereby expanding its ability to use its land and property assets far more efficiently.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Let us be clear that this is a huge departure for the Crown Estate. The Bill basically allows it to go to the City and to raise capital based on its assets, most of which, as the Minister highlights, are property. As he knows, the sponsor Government Department for the Crown Estate is the Treasury, but investments go up and down. What if those investments go down? Who will be the guarantor for those liabilities? Will it be the taxpayer or the Crown Estate?

[Darren Jones]

I will come to a number of those points later in my speech. If I have not answered the right hon. Gentleman’s points as I get towards the end, I will take another intervention from him.

As a result of the changes in the Bill, the Crown Estate will be able to accelerate investment in redeveloping and decarbonising its Regent Street and historic London portfolio, as well as investing in projects to support science and innovation. The Bill will unlock potential investment of up to £1.5 billion in the science, technology and innovation economy over the next 15 years, building on the Crown Estate’s recent investment in the city of Oxford.

To reduce the size of its cash holdings and engage in more capital-intensive activity in the long term, the Crown Estate needs the ability to borrow, as its competitors currently can. Such borrowing will be from the Government or from other sources, but only with Treasury consent. Borrowing from the Government will be at commercial rates, meaning the interest the Crown Estate pays, funded from its own income, will outweigh the Government’s cost of borrowing the money they loan to the Crown Estate. This will enable the Crown Estate to build on its long track record of delivering significant revenues to the public purse year after year—it has delivered over £4 billion in the last decade.

[Mark Pritchard]

Is there not a potential conflict of interest? The Minister mentions GB Energy, a new national organisation introduced by Labour Government policy. Because of the Crown Estate’s partnership with the Treasury, the Government are encouraging the Crown Estate to invest in GB Energy, but what if people out there do not like that policy? What if GB Energy is a failure? It is there not a clear potential conflict of interest between the Crown Estate and the incumbent Government?

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman is doing a brilliant job of anticipating sections in my speech. Once again, I will point at him when I come to the relevant section; in fact, it is the next section, so he is in luck.

There will be a memorandum of understanding in place between the Treasury and the Crown Estate that will govern how the borrowing powers will be exercised. Above all, the Crown Estate will be borrowing for investment, maximising the profits returned to the public purse. Any such borrowing will require Treasury consent and will be within our fiscal rules.

Given that the new powers will enable the Crown Estate to first draw on its cash holdings, it is not envisaged that these borrowing powers will be used until the end of the decade. As with any public sector borrowing, the Treasury will ensure that this is consistent with “Managing Public Money” principles to ensure value for money for the taxpayer. The fiscal impact of any Crown Estate borrowing will be fully considered, starting with this year’s spending review, to ensure it is consistent with our fiscal rules.

The Bill contains a set of necessary reforms, ensuring that the two key objectives can be met and that the Crown Estate can continue to operate effectively, both now and in the years ahead. It is composed of five key elements. First, it widens investment powers by removing existing restrictions on investing in the current Crown Estate Act 1961, and clarifies the Crown Estate’s ability to invest in complementary activities, such as research, digital technology and energy supply chains. Secondly, it grants the Crown Estate the power to borrow with Treasury consent. As well as generating returns for the public purse, the new ability to borrow will free it up to make better use of its existing assets, leveraging these to give it more room to invest.

Thirdly, the Bill makes amendments relating to the governance of the Crown Estate to provide legislative simplification and to bring it in line with best practice for modern corporate governance. By expanding the number of commissioners, the board will be able to better reflect the growing breadth of the Crown Estate business and ensure a greater range of expertise and diversity at board level. The Bill also requires the appointment of commissioners to advise on Wales, England and Northern Ireland, which will ensure that the board continues to act in the best interests of the areas in which it operates.

Fourthly, the Bill requires the commissioners to keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development goals in the UK. It is important that progress towards national goals on the environment and climate, as well as wider considerations on society and the economy, continue to be at the core of the Crown Estate’s strategy.

Fifthly, the Bill requires the annual report to include a section on the activities of the commissioners under their recently announced partnership with Great British Energy. That will ensure that details of the partnership and the benefits it creates are publicly available, clear to all and subject to debate in this House when those reports are published.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I understand that the Minister is proposing that, in relation to the seabed, the Crown Estate will be a licensing authority for renewable energy projects and will now be able to invest in them too. The commissioners have a primary duty to maximise the return to the Crown Estate of any activity they undertake. To comply with the law, will the Crown Estate be compelled to side with renewable energy development at the expense of the fishing industry if, for example, there is a conflict between the siting of an offshore wind farm and the use of that sea by the fishing industry, and is that fair?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

That is a great question. I have no idea, so I will commit to writing to the right hon. Gentleman with an answer, if he will forgive me for not knowing.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Darren Jones]

Only if it is a question to which I know the answer.

[Melanie Onn]

I might be able to help a little with the question asked by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). The Crown Estate has engaged in supporting the evidence and change programme that has brought the fishing industry and the renewables sector around the table to enable earlier planning to prevent some of the conflicts we have seen. My speech will highlight some good examples of where those plans and the evidence and change programme have started to be implemented. The industries are working together, hand in hand, to prevent the kind of conflict about which the right hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned.

[Darren Jones]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her help, which I hope gives the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) some reassurance, as it sounds eminently sensible.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Clause 3 covers this:

“The Commissioners must keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom.”

This has been written into the Bill.

[Darren Jones]

I am continually grateful for the team effort, and I am grateful to my hon. Friends for having paid such close attention to the Bill.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am aware of the duty to keep this under review, but that will surely be overridden, because the primary duty remains to maximise the return for the Crown Estate. I am quite happy for the Crown Estate to be both a licensor and an investor, although there is something of a conflict of interest, but surely there needs to be more concern about the Bill’s impact on other seagoing industries. In a way, I fear that the Minister’s response to my initial question suggests this has not been given sufficient attention thus far.

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman should not take my not knowing the answer as meaning that other people are not paying sufficient attention to the issue. He has asked a very technical question, and I commit to making sure an answer is made available to him and the House before the Bill goes to Committee.

The Bill currently places an obligation on the commissioners in relation to salmon farming, due to an amendment made in the other place. The Government do not believe this obligation would be effective or, indeed, appropriate, given that it relates to a devolved policy area. We therefore intend to seek to remove this measure in Committee.

The Bill has seven clauses. Clause 1 inserts two new measures into the Crown Estate Act 1961 to clarify and broaden the commissioners’ powers. It also removes section 3(4) of the 1961 Act, thereby removing limitations on the commissioners’ investment powers.

The two new measures grant a power to borrow, subject to Treasury consent, and clarify that the commissioners have the powers to do that which is connected, conducive or incidental to meeting their general functions, including enhancing and maintaining the Crown Estate and the returns obtained from it. This allows the Crown Estate to borrow from the National Loans Fund, the Treasury or otherwise, subject to Treasury consent, and authorises the Treasury to provide financial assistance to the commissioners or to provide loans from the National Loans Fund.

Clause 2 makes two amendments to modernise the Crown Estate’s governance, by increasing the maximum number of board members from eight to 12 and removing the requirement for the salaries and expenses of its commissioners to be paid out of voted funds.

Clause 3 requires the commissioners to keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom. Clause 4 requires the commissioners’ annual report to include a specific report relating to the Crown Estate’s partnership with Great British Energy.

Clause 5 requires the commissioners to make assessments relating to salmon farms on Crown Estate land, and to refuse or revoke a licence for a salmon farm if the assessment determines that it may cause, or is causing, environmental damage, or if it raises significant animal welfare concerns.

[Stephen Flynn]

The Minister has mentioned GB Energy and the desire to get on with allowing the Crown Estate in England and Wales to borrow. He will not have forgotten that GB Energy is likely to be located in my Aberdeen South constituency, and many of its projects to drive the net zero agenda across the UK will come to fruition in Scotland. Will he provide a little clarity on why he believes these powers should apply to the Crown Estate in England and Wales, yet his Government are not legislating for the powers to be provided to Crown Estate Scotland? I am at a loss to understand the reasoning.

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the ambitions for GB Energy are broader than those relating to the provisions of this Bill. On the connection between the Crown Estate and GB Energy in relation to this Bill, it is merely about the partnership that has already been announced to facilitate the investment opportunities that are available in relation to England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to my previous answer on Crown Estate Scotland.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

We have talked a little about Scotland and Wales, but does the Minister believe this Bill will stimulate greater economic growth in other areas and regions of the country? The south-west peninsula has a huge amount of wind energy potential, for example, so has he assessed what sort of investment opportunities might come from this Bill?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent question. He will know from the work of ministerial colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero that the enormous potential for offshore wind in the Celtic sea and off the south-west coast is currently largely untapped. A lot of the work that needs to be done to make those seabeds available, and to bring the interconnections onshore and on to the grid to make it viable for private sector investment, requires quite a lot of up-front work. The Bill will enable the Crown Estate, working in partnership with GB Energy, to identify opportunities to invest in things like supply chain and in preparation and planning for the seabed work, and to identify the cost profiles that might relate to the projects that are being developed. That will facilitate the deals that we wish to make with private sector suppliers to unlock those opportunities. We see this as an important enabling mechanism to take advantage of the opportunities we have in the south-west and other parts of the country.

Clause 6 requires the appointment of separate commissioners with responsibility for giving advice about England, Wales and Northern Ireland, noting, as I have on a number of occasions, that Crown Estate Scotland is a separate entity. It also grants Welsh Ministers and the Executive Office in Northern Ireland the right to be consulted on each of the appointments relating to those parts of the UK. Clause 7 sets out procedural matters relating to the Bill’s extent and commencement.

The Bill gives the Crown Estate the flexibility it needs to meet its core duty of enhancing and maintaining the value of the estate and the returns obtained from it. The Bill broadens the scope of the activities in which the Crown Estate can engage, enabling it to further invest in the energy transition, and it empowers the Crown Estate to invest in capital-intensive projects more effectively. Critically, these measures will unlock more long-term investment, increasing the Crown Estate’s contribution to creating high-quality jobs and driving growth across the United Kingdom.

This Bill delivers a targeted and measured enhancement to the Crown Estate’s powers and governance, modernising it for the 21st century, and I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill

Darren Jones Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Madam Chair.

We had a very constructive debate on Second Reading of the Bill. In particular, I wish to express my appreciation for the universal support that the House has shown for the provision of this vital funding. It is clearly a subject close to the hearts of many of us across the House. I look forward to further discussion on this important Bill today.

As the Committee is aware, the extraordinary revenue acceleration is an ambitious scheme designed to provide Ukraine with a total of $50 billion in additional support, to be repaid by the extraordinary profits generated on Russian sovereign assets held in the European Union. The United Kingdom’s contribution of £2.26 billion is joined by pledges from the United States, the European Union, Canada and Japan.

The Bill contains only two clauses. They are both straightforward. Clause 1 grants the Government the legal spending authority to fulfil the commitment we have made to provide Ukraine with the UK’s contribution to the extraordinary revenue acceleration. The clause empowers the Treasury or the Secretary of State to provide the Government of Ukraine with funds approved by Parliament as a result of the extraordinary revenue acceleration loans for Ukraine scheme, or

“any subsequent arrangements that are supplemental to or modify or replace those arrangements.”

Payments made under clause 1 will be those that are necessary to perform the UK’s commitment to the ERA scheme.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

In of course welcoming the Government’s measures, I note that the Minister referred to the extraordinary interest from the frozen Russian assets. Have the Government permanently set their mind against any possible actual seizure of the assets themselves, perhaps in agreement with other G7 members or EU members?

[Darren Jones]

I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. As we debated on Second Reading, this is a commitment across G7 partners and with the European Union to take action on the proceeds of the assets that are held. For other complicated legal reasons, there is no intention to seize those assets at this time.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for his acknowledgement of the cross-party support for this measure, but to back up my colleague, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the $3 billion from the UK is generous and will make a difference, but the $300 billion in frozen assets would be utterly game changing. I accept the Minister’s argument at the moment about some of the more complicated legal issues. I know that he accepts the very serious situation that the Ukrainians are facing on the front, defending all of us. May I encourage him merely to continue to look at this issue and see whether he can work with G7 colleagues to find a way of unpicking the difficulties that he has highlighted?

[Darren Jones]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s encouragement, which I take in good faith. He will know that these matters are multilateral and subject to negotiation with other allies and G7 colleagues, but he will also know, as I am sure the whole House does, that we go into 2025 with a strength of resolve across those G7 countries to do all that we can to help Ukraine continue to mount its defence against the illegal invasion from Russia.

Any other payments beyond the extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine or any other country that are unrelated to the ERA scheme are not covered by the provisions of the Bill; this money is in addition to other grants and payments that have been referred to in the House previously.

The clause contains provision for the UK to provide funding towards subsequent arrangements that are supplemental to, modify or replace the ERA. This provision allows for flexibility in the unlikely event that the scheme itself should significantly alter. It is not intended to be used without this change in circumstances.

Clause 2 simply sets out the short title of the Bill.

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for opening the debate. The Conservative Government were a vociferous advocate for mobilising Russia’s frozen sovereign assets to support Ukraine. We drove G7 and European partners to try to coalesce around the most ambitious solution possible to achieve that outcome. The announcement on 22 October marked progress on that journey and is a step in the right direction. We understand that the Government’s position is that the United Kingdom’s contribution should be earmarked for supporting Ukraine’s military expenditure, including on air defence, artillery and other equipment. The Opposition would support that. We need to persevere with our efforts to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position to counter Russia’s unprovoked and illegal invasion.

Matters since Second Reading have been fast moving, so let me pose some questions to the Minister. Since Second Reading, the United States has given Ukraine $20 billion, funded by the profits of frozen Russian assets. That economic support forms a significant part of the overall $50 billion package agreed by G7 member nations and announced in June. The US Treasury said that it had transferred the $20 billion to a World Bank fund, where it will be available for Ukraine to draw. Money handled by the World Bank cannot be used for military purposes.

The US Administration had initially hoped to dedicate half the money to military aid, but that would have required approval from Congress, which the President did not seek. Perhaps the Minister can update the House on what discussions the UK Government have had with the US Administration, Canada and the European Union about the use of funds provided for military purposes. Are any strings attached to the funds that will be provided by the UK? As the US has already provided its share of moneys anticipated in the G7 package, can the Minister advise the House on the timing of the UK’s contribution? I think it was made clear on Second Reading, but it would be helpful to have an update, given the move by the US since then.

As the Minister and the Government have advised, the loans that the UK will pay will form part of the extraordinary revenue acceleration loan agreement by the G7. The loans that the UK will provide will be repaid by the Ukraine loan co-operation mechanism, established by the European Union under regulation 2024/2773 on 24 October. The ability of the UK to have its loans repaid depends in large part on a decision by the European Union to maintain its freeze on Russian assets. The EU renews Russian sanctions every six months, and efforts to extend that to a three-year review cycle were rebuffed by Hungary earlier this year. Will the Minister confirm that there is a risk, in the event that the EU does not extend its sanctions on Russia, that the costs of the loan will be borne by UK taxpayers, and what mitigations he might consider if that situation arises?

Finally, the EU controls more than two thirds of Russia’s $300 billion of sovereign assets that have been frozen by western allies following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Of those EU-held frozen assets, 90% are held by the Belgian-based financial services company Euroclear. The profits from the EU-held assets, estimated to be between $2.6 billion and $3.2 billion per year, have been used to arm Ukraine and finance its post-war reconstruction. We understand that the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, said in an interview with The Guardian on 12 December that the European Union should use the billions in frozen state assets to aid Ukraine. She emphasised that Ukraine had a legitimate claim for compensation, and described the Russian assets held in the EU as

“a tool to pressure Russia.”

The Minister responded to earlier interventions, but can he confirm the UK Government’s position? Has he discussed the matter with the EU and Belgium, and does he have any plans for the UK to go further on the use of those assets?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell). He has demonstrated why he will be such a valuable addition to the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I congratulate him on his election to it. I associate myself with his comments and those of other Members. We often find ourselves disagreeing over the smallest of details, so I am proud that we can all come together on an issue of such magnitude in unity with the people of Ukraine. Long may that cross-party support continue.

Earlier this year, as some Members may know, I had the privilege of visiting Ukraine. I went over with an Estonian charity, driving a couple of military pick-up trucks over from the UK as part of a much larger convoy that went into Kyiv. Those vehicles were handed over to the Ukrainian soldiers, and it brought home that there was not only support and solidarity in this country for Ukraine, but solidarity across the whole of Europe. That is why we are coming together on the measures in this Bill. Hopefully we will have an opportunity to go again, and I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). We were both on a call earlier, and I know that he and other Members have also made trips to Ukraine and been part of aid convoys to help people, and long may that continue.

This Bill is another tool in the arsenal when it comes to fighting one of the world’s greatest tyrants. Ukraine’s fight against Russian tyranny is not just for Ukraine’s sovereignty, but for the freedom and security of the whole of Europe. One striking thing in making that journey is realising just how flat Europe is. I know that seems a silly point, but it brings home that there is nothing stopping Putin at the borders of Ukraine if we do not stand up against him now. The fact that another of the world’s tyrants, Assad, is now cowering in Moscow demonstrates the importance of curtailing Russia’s aggression.

I am proud that this Government and the Government before have stood foursquare behind Ukraine. As other Members have said, the Bill will land a deafening blow on Putin’s war machine and unlock a £2.26 billion contribution from the UK to the extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme, which crucially will not be paid by Ukraine or by British taxpayers. It comes from dodgy cash from profits owned by sanctioned Russian assets held in the EU.

I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton), who listed the various ways in which the previous Government and the current Government have supported Ukraine. Long may that continue. It is so important that we continue to stand four-square behind Ukraine for as long as it takes. I urge the Committee to do all in our power to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent as urgently as is feasible, especially as we approach winter, when the battle conditions will become even tougher. Finally, I use this opportunity to pay tribute to the Ukrainian forces fighting on the frontline, the British troops involved in training and equipping them and all those showing resilience in the face of Putin’s illegal war.

[Darren Jones]

In closing, I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), for Livingston (Gregor Poynton), for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), for Hexham (Joe Morris), for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) and for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) and the hon. Members for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) and for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins), the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), and the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), for being here for this important debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Among some of the excellent contributions we heard in this debate was the remark by the hon. Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) that if Putin is not seen to fail in Ukraine, British troops will ultimately end up being involved in some sort of conflict directly. Will the Minister take that message back to his Treasury colleagues? Some of us feel that the arguments about whether 2.5% of GDP should be spent now or in a couple of years’ time rather miss the point, because if we get to the stage where British forces are engaged, we will be spending far more than that. As a Treasury Minister, he should realise that investment in defence in peacetime can deter a much more expensive conflict.

[Darren Jones]

The Government’s position, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, is that we will set out the trajectory to 2.5% of GDP on NATO qualifying spend in 2025, following the conclusion of the strategic defence review and the spending review. He will also know that we fund our armed forces not just to be prepared, but to be ready to contribute. But clearly, I cannot comment on hypothetical scenarios in 2025. He was right to allude to contributions in the debate that rightly highlighted the Ukrainian armed forces on the battlefield fighting not just for their own country but for the security of Europe and the United Kingdom. I think we are all clear-eyed about that and, therefore, our responsibility to help them. That is why the Bill is one part of the package of support that we are putting in place and will continue to put in place over 2025.

I think I have answered most of the points substantively, and so I conclude my remarks.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Bill, not amended in the Committee, considered.

Third Reading

[Darren Jones]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Once again, I extend my gratitude to Members from across the House for contributing to today’s debate and facilitating the swift passage of the Bill. Today, and throughout the Bill’s passage so far, this House has made clear its strong feelings on the plight of the Ukrainian people. Members of all political stripes have spoken eloquently in favour of continued support for Ukraine in its ongoing fight against Russia’s tyrannical, unprovoked and illegal aggression. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, no matter which party has been in office, the UK Government have remained committed to fully supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes.

The G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme and this Bill, which facilitates the UK’s contribution, are another demonstration of the UK delivering on that promise. Beyond the ERA, the UK has now committed £12.8 billion in military, humanitarian and economic support to Ukraine. Earlier this year, the Government announced that we will continue to provide guaranteed military support of £3 billion per year to Ukraine for as long as it takes, and our ERA commitment goes further still. As hon. Members will know, the Bill unlocks the UK’s contribution of £2.26 billion, which constitutes a fair and proportionate contribution to the scheme based on our GDP share within the G7 and EU. It remains crucial that we pass the Bill as swiftly as possible to begin disbursing funds this winter to meet Ukraine’s urgent needs. Taken together, the ERA will provide Ukraine with an additional $50 billion in support. I pay tribute to our G7 partners for their collective determination to bring the ERA to fruition in just a few short months. We all remain united in our support for Ukraine against Russian provocation.

We in this House recognise the sacrifice that the people of Ukraine are making. They are fighting not only for their own survival and national identity, but for the security of Europe and the United Kingdom. The Bill will enable the Government to provide Ukraine with the essential support it requires to continue its battle against Putin’s unjust and illegal aggression.

At this point, Madam Deputy Speaker, given that this is probably my last contribution to the House this year, I wish you and the House a very merry Christmas, and say to the Ukrainian people that we hold them all in our hearts over this difficult period. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Employer National Insurance Contributions

Darren Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)]

The shadow Chancellor made a number of interesting points, and I will give him the courtesy of going through a number of them. He talked about how this Government are risking inflation, when his Government sent it spiralling to the highest level in a generation. He said that Labour Members are talking down the economy, when his Government crashed it. He said that Conservative Members disagreed with the measures in the Budget, specifically in relation to national insurance contributions, but not one alternative option was laid out in his speech.

The public have a right to know what his choices would be: would the Conservatives want to increase income tax on workers or VAT in the shops, or would they like to increase corporation tax again on business? Would they like to cut tens of billions of pounds from public services or borrow more money every single day to pay the bills, or continue to make a black hole in the public finances? He suggested that the Labour party’s transparency with the country about the £22 billion black hole that the Conservatives left was not real, but they know that they created it. The sooner they say sorry to the country, the sooner the public might start listening to them once again.

I will finish with a positive comment. The shadow Chancellor said that his party was a “job-creating machine”. I am very grateful for the number of former Conservative MPs they have released into the labour market, given how many vacancies we have filled.

In her Budget statement on 30 October, the Chancellor set out the difficult decisions that the Government needed to take on welfare, spending and tax. Those decisions were not just difficult but necessary, given the fiscal irresponsibility and economic mismanagement of the Conservative party over the past 14 years. I welcome a debate on the choices, as I hear Members say from a sedentary position, “Choices, choices, choices.” What are yours? You should set that out to this House and you—[Interruption.] The party opposite should set them out to the public.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The Chief Secretary might like to reflect that when he says, “What are yours?”, it means, “What are mine?” They are not my choices. Can he please be careful not to use “you” and “yours”?

[Darren Jones]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. To be very clear and to correct the record, the Conservative party should tell the country what its choices are. I am all ears.

The Labour party inherited a mess and we, as a responsible party of government, have needed to take measures to fix the public finances, fund the national health service and other public services, and deliver economic stability. We have been determined to take those decisions while protecting working people, which was our manifesto commitment. That is why the Budget made no changes to income tax, the rate of VAT or the amount of national insurance working people will pay. As a result of our Budget, people will not see a penny more in tax on their payslips. Yet keeping those promises while getting the country back on track meant tough decisions elsewhere in the tax system—choices and decisions that we are willing to take.

[Graham Stuart]

Perhaps with the assistance of the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury behind him, the right hon. Gentleman might be able to answer a question that other Treasury Ministers have not been able to: why did the OBR make a correction in table 3.2 in chapter 3? It was originally suggested that £5.5 billion would be provided for compensation

“to public sector employers and adult social care”.

That was then corrected to remove any reference to social care and the number was cut by £800 million. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what caused the OBR to make that correction and when it was decided that social care was not worth support?

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman might in future give me advance notice of specific references to documents so that I can refer to them. I cannot tell him about table 3.2 in the OBR document because it is not here, but we will of course get an answer to him. He may wish to consider why the OBR said that had the Conservative party been more transparent about its time in government, its forecast would have been materially different. The shadow Chancellor was unable to provide an answer to that in response to interventions from colleagues from around the House.

That inheritance is why, at the Budget, we took the decision to increase national insurance contributions for employers while increasing protections for small businesses and charities. The Government increased the main rate of employer secondary class 1 national insurance contributions from 13.8% to 15%.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Darren Jones]

I will give way in a second. We have decreased the secondary threshold for employers, which is the threshold above which employers begin to pay employer national insurance contributions on their employees’ salaries, from £9,100 to £5,000. At the same time, we have increased protection for small businesses by more than doubling the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

The national insurance hike will impact on small businesses, which form the backbone of our local economies as fixtures on our high streets across London and across my Sutton and Cheam constituency, including in Worcester Park and North Cheam. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in recognising that Small Business Saturday is this weekend? Does he agree that the Government might take this opportunity to rethink the national insurance hike and the impact on small businesses, which will be suffering this week and beyond?

[Darren Jones]

We have factored small businesses into the design of our policy, in terms of both employer national insurance contributions and our commitment to permanent lower rates for business rates than were given under the previous Government, as well as other support for the high street. We are also expanding eligibility to the employment allowance by removing the £100,000 eligibility threshold to simplify and reform employer NICs so that all eligible employers can now benefit.

Changes to the employment allowance mean that around 250,000 employers will see their national insurance contributions liability decrease, and more than 1 million will pay the same or less than they did previously. Overall, that means that more than half of businesses with NICs liabilities will either see no change or will gain overall from the package. That design was put in place specifically to protect the small businesses that the hon. Gentleman raises. That means that 865,000 employers will not pay national insurance at all, enabling them, for example, to employ up to four full-time workers on the national living wage and pay no employer NICs. Employers will also continue to benefit from employer NICs relief, including for hiring workers aged under 21 and apprentices aged under 25. To support veterans, the Government are extending the national insurance contributions relief for employers of qualifying veterans for one year to April 2026, and we have set aside funding to protect the spending power of the public sector, including the national health service, from the direct impacts of the changes.

Even after accounting for the impact of this change, the OBR expects real wages to rise by 3% between now and the end of the forecast period, but we recognise that there will be impacts on employers. While many small businesses and charities will be protected through employment allowance, others will have to contribute more. There will also be impacts beyond business, as the Office for Budget Responsibility has acknowledged.

[Mr Perkins]

My right hon. Friend and I spent many years in opposition, and have spoken in many Opposition day debates. Does he agree that when the Opposition move a motion like today’s, which says that the Government should not do something without making any alternative suggestion about what they should do, it is a sign that the Opposition have not worked out their answer to the question? At some point, I hope that the Opposition will be able to help the country and the Government by having some policies, but does he agree that, until they do, the Government will just have to crack on as best they can on their own?

[Darren Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I encourage Opposition Members to put forward proposals. I am all ears. I am willing to listen to them, but so far all we have is opposition and no policies. Maybe that will change in the future.

The motion claims that the Government have not set out any impact assessment of the policy change, but the Government published a tax information and impact note on 13 November that explained the Government’s assessment of the policy, including its impact on businesses and the economy more widely. This was a difficult choice, and it is not one that we have taken lightly, but it is the right choice given the dire economic inheritance that the Government faced upon taking office, and the need to fix our broken public services. As the Chancellor set out in the Budget, healthy businesses depend on a healthy NHS, and a strong economy depends on strong public finances.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

On the NHS and choices, does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the Government have chosen to clobber organisations and charities such as air ambulances and the hospice movement—the very organisations whose help the Government will need to improve services for the general public? As we asked yesterday, will he consider an exemption?

[Darren Jones]

As my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has made very clear, when the Labour party came into government the NHS was broken. Why? Because of actions taken by the Conservative party over the last 14 years. That is why the Government have to take decisions to get a grip of the public finances and our public services. The changes are necessary in order to draw a line under instability, so that businesses can plan for the future, and to ensure that the NHS will receive an extra £22.6 billion to deliver 40,000 extra elective appointments a week. That vital new funding will create an NHS that is there when we need it, and the Government will achieve that within our tough fiscal rules—rules that will bring an end to borrowing for day-to-day spending, which was completely out of control when the Conservative party was in government.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you might think that, having called for higher NHS spending over the weekend, the Opposition would recognise the need to take tough but necessary decisions on the public finances in order to pay for it, but it seemed from the speech of the shadow Chancellor that that is not the case. Perhaps the Opposition might take the opportunity today to explain how they will raise the £25 billion that the changes provide for, but which they will not support. How else do they intend to pay for the new appointments and better services that the funding offers? What tough decisions would they make to repair the public finances and put our economy on a sustainable footing?

The Opposition’s double standards on this issue only go to show why they are not trusted on the economy: they have given up any pretence of fiscal responsibility. We recognise that the decision to increase employer national insurance will have impacts. Although the changes to employment allowance will help to protect small businesses and charities, other measures mean that larger businesses and organisations will have to make difficult decisions. However, as the Chancellor set out, this was a once-in-a-generation Budget. The difficult decisions we took meant that we were able to wipe the slate clean from the previous Government’s economic and fiscal mismanagement. Public services will now need to live within their means on the budgets we have set for them for the rest of this Parliament.

The Budget delivered economic stability and fiscal responsibility so that we can take the steps necessary to boost investment, fix our public services and grow the economy. That fiscal responsibility is only possible when Governments are willing to take tough decisions. This Government will not shy away from those tough decisions and will do what is right to fix the foundations of our economy, despite the dire inheritance left by the Conservatives. The shadow Chancellor said we were hiding in the past and not facing the future. I say to him: we are running to the future, dealing with the challenges and delivering for the British people.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons). I rise to speak in favour of the motion on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

I do not rise to speak in this House because I think the Labour party’s Budget is vindictive, but I do think that the national insurance rise we are debating today is a proposal that runs right through the Labour party’s DNA. Labour drives down growth, when growth should be the No. 1 priority for public services. It taxes the wealth creators and the small businesses, it borrows and makes the economic situation worse, and it is always the Conservative party that has to pick up the pieces after Labour has targeted the poorest people and smallest businesses in our society and made them suffer.

Ultimately, the lack of growth that the Labour party and every Labour Member have signed up to means that public services will suffer, fewer jobs will be created and more businesses will close. I gently say to the Chief Secretary that he challenged us repeatedly to outline what we would do instead of this measure to make sure that we can fund public services, and I will tell him a few things that we would not do. [Interruption.] Well, I will tell him in a minute, and he can intervene and elaborate, and I will get an extra minute. As he asked me what we would do, I will tell him: we would increase growth, as was outlined by the OBR. We would have growth, and higher growth than this Government are proposing. However, what we would not be doing is borrowing as much as him and spending £9 billion on public sector pay rises for his trade union paymasters, funded from borrowing. Those are the things we would not do.

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member tells the House that he would go for growth. How did that go when his party tried it last time?

[Paul Holmes]

I simply say—and the Chief Secretary should know this because he supposedly wrote the Budget that we voted on a couple of weeks ago—that growth forecasts were higher under the last Government than those of the Government for whom he is now leading in the Treasury. I say to the Government that business confidence is at the lowest it has been for years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Darren Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)]

25. What steps she plans to take to help improve living standards.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)]

We plan to raise living standards by boosting economic growth to put more money in people’s pockets, and by developing a comprehensive strategy on child poverty to give every child the best start in life. Already, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that living standards will increase during this Parliament, at more than double the pace observed in the previous Parliament.

[Natalie Fleet]

Fourteen years of Conservative rule meant that we all saw child poverty levels rise. One in five children across the country now grows up in scarring poverty. A quarter of all children in Bolsover live in poverty. Can the Minister please set out the measures that this Labour Government will take to end this travesty?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She will know that this Government, like every Labour Government, are committed to improving living standards right across the country. From 1 April 2025, the national living wage will increase by 6.7% to £12.21 per hour for eligible workers aged 21 and over. That represents an increase of £1,400 to the gross annual earnings of a full-time worker on the national living wage, and is expected to benefit around 3 million low-paid workers. My hon. Friend knows that the Government have set up a ministerial taskforce on child poverty, which will report in 2025.

[Pamela Nash]

In the Chancellor’s first ever Budget, she delivered over £1.5 billion for Scotland this year and £3.4 billion next year—the largest ever block grant settlement in the history of the Scottish Parliament. Unlike the Tories and the SNP, it is clear that this Labour Government are choosing investment over simply managing decline. Can the Minister share with the House a bit more detail about how the Budget will directly impact and improve the lives of people in my constituency of Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke, and throughout Scotland?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. As she said, the Scottish Government’s spending review settlement for 2025-26 is the largest, in real terms, of any settlement since devolution began. The Scottish Government are receiving at least 20% more per person than equivalent UK Government spending in the rest of the United Kingdom. That translates to over £8.5 billion more in 2025-26 alone. This Labour Government are delivering for the people of Scotland by giving the Scottish Government the power and money to get on with the job, and it is for the SNP to be accountable for what it delivers for the Scottish people.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Can the Minister confirm that of the £26.4 billion tax rise through the increase in employer NICs, £19 billion will come directly out of people’s pay packets? Secondly, can he confirm that the net amount that the Treasury will actually get from that £26.4 billion after behavioural change and public sector compensation is just £11 billion?

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten the cost that working people paid as a consequence of his party’s actions in government, with inflation on house prices racing to 11%, the cost of living crisis, higher energy bills and a loss of grip on public spending. People suffered a direct cost in their disposable income because of the actions of the Conservative party. This Labour Government have wiped the slate clean, and we are getting a grip on public spending, fixing the foundations and delivering for working people.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Will the Chancellor admit, as she has already done in the media, that wages will be lower because of her jobs tax?

[Darren Jones]

This Government’s commitment to economic growth will improve living standards for people right across the country. I refer the hon. Member to my previous answer and suggest that his party might want to apologise before trying to lecture this Government on the change that we are delivering.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

10. What steps she is taking to increase long-term investment in the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

T4. The A50/A500 and Branston bridge in my constituency are just two examples of infrastructure projects that need investment. What investment is the Department making to improve our roads and infrastructure?

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)]

My hon. Friend has campaigned extensively on this issue in his constituency. I understand that National Highways continues to develop proposals to improve the A50/A500 corridor through Uttoxeter. That is part of the pipeline of projects for future road investment strategies. He will know that in the Budget, we invested £1.6 billion to maintain and renew the nation’s local roads. That includes a £500 million increase in 2025-26 alone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

On economic black holes, the Labour Mayor of London thinks that Brexit punched a £40 billion black hole in the public finances. A very simple question for the Chancellor: has leaving the EU been a net positive or a net negative for the public finances?

[Darren Jones]

The Government have no overall estimate of the impact of the UK’s exit from the EU, but the OBR has projected a 4% drop in productivity in the long term. That is why we are starting negotiations with the EU to improve trade in our mutual interest.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

T8. The previous Government left a mess of £22 billion for us to clean up following their short-term decisions and absolute lack of investment in services. This Government are taking a different approach, with long-term investment for our economic success. Will the Chancellor work with me to find the £3 million of long-term investment in the port of Rosyth that is required to bring back a ferry between Rosyth and Dunkirk? That would bring 51,000 passengers a year to Scotland and take 8.1 million km of freight traffic off the road, and it has the support of large local employers such as Mowi and Amazon.

[Darren Jones]

The Government recognise that ports are an important route to growth, which is why the national wealth fund will deploy at least £5.8 billion into five priority manifesto sectors, including ports. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that specific constituency issue in due course.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

WealthTek was placed into administration by the Financial Conduct Authority after losing £80 million of its clients’ money. FCA-appointed administrators are now deducting fees from victims’ compensation. My constituents Dominic Knights and his wife have between them lost thousands of pounds. What is the Treasury doing to safeguard the £85,000 compensation limit?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Minister, you’re running out of road.

[Darren Jones]

The Government will always support local authorities to deliver good value for money road enhancements to support economic growth and improved connectivity. The Norwich western link road is currently the subject of a live planning application, so I am afraid that I cannot comment further on the specifics.

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)]

I cannot help but think that this morning has made for rather depressing listening. We hear this repetition about a £22 billion black hole, but we are dealing with very serious matters such as people’s employment. Ultimately I hear the Chancellor talking about a central planning agenda, but it is public services that are the problem; they are wasting money, and we must seriously consider that. Will the Chancellor accept, if the economy turns down next year, which it surely will, that she has made a mess of it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

When the Windsor framework was introduced, it was accompanied by the boast that access to the EU single market would result in a huge increase in investment in Northern Ireland. Is the Chancellor aware that Invest NI has reported that there has been no upturn, and is that not because of the barrier presented by the Irish sea border to the bringing of raw materials into Northern Ireland from Great Britain?

[Darren Jones]

The Government are committed to increasing the flow of investment to every nation and region of the United Kingdom, and we will continue to work with the Northern Ireland Executive to deliver that for the people of Northern Ireland.

Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill

Darren Jones Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am proud of the unity that this House has shown in its support for Ukraine. This support has been steadfast since the onset of Russia’s illegal full-scale invasion in February 2022, regardless of the party in office, and it remains so today. We in this House recognise that while Ukraine is on the frontline, it is fighting for democracy and security across Europe. I want to make it clear that this Government stand, and will continue to stand, in unwavering support of Ukraine with our G7 allies.

On 22 October, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Defence Secretary announced that the UK would contribute £2.26 billion to the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine scheme, the ERA. This landmark agreement will provide Ukraine with a total of $50 billion in vital additional funding, allowing it to continue to fight back against Putin’s war machine. Crucially, these funds will be repaid not by Ukraine, but from the extraordinary profits made on sanctioned Russian sovereign assets held in the European Union.

This Bill simply provides the spending authority for the UK to contribute to the ERA scheme, enabling us to begin disbursing funds to Ukraine. It is another important demonstration of the UK’s commitment to backing Ukraine for as long as it takes. It will unlock our £2.26 billion contribution to the ERA, funding which is additional to all previous commitments.

The UK has long been at the forefront of support for Ukraine. Our total military, humanitarian and economic support pledged since February 2022 already stands at £12.8 billion. We have often been the first mover on military support in particular, which ranges from training over 47,000 Ukrainian military personnel to providing a squadron of Challenger 2 main battle tanks. Earlier this year, the Government announced that the UK would continue to provide guaranteed military support of £3 billion per year to Ukraine for as long as it takes.

But while we can be proud of what the UK has already done for Ukraine, Members of the House need no reminding that Ukraine’s military, budgetary and humanitarian needs continue to be grave. Existing support is not enough; we must go further still to ensure that Ukraine wins this war. We must do this alongside our allies. The ERA is an ambitious scheme, and represents a united G7 pledge, with contributions from the United States, the European Union, Canada and Japan. Our £2.26 billion constitutes a fair and proportionate contribution to the scheme based on the UK’s GDP share in the G7 and EU.

Each lender will now negotiate a bilateral loan with Ukraine to govern how the funds are distributed and spent within a collective framework agreed by the G7. Repayments from the profits on immobilised Russian assets will be redistributed to the G7 lenders from the EU in proportion to our contributions. The EU regulation providing for this is already in place.

The Government have assessed that Ukraine’s most pressing need is for military support. The UK’s contribution to the ERA is therefore earmarked for military procurement to bolster Ukraine’s capacity for self-defence. This support will help ensure that Ukraine can continue to withstand Russian aggression and fight back against it. The UK is committed to ensuring value for money for both the UK and Ukraine, including through exploring the use of existing UK-enabled procurement channels for Ukraine to purchase the equipment that it needs. Our funding will be delivered in three tranches over three financial years, with the first tranche intended to be delivered in early 2025.

The Bill has one simple purpose: to unlock the UK’s contribution to the ERA. It consists of one substantive clause, which seeks the authority of Parliament to spend the money on the UK’s contribution and make good on our commitment. The Bill is not intended to be used for any purpose beyond that, and it will not be used to spend above the £2.26 billion figure that has been announced. Our figure has been agreed with the G7 and caps have been built into the scheme at a G7 level through the EU repayment mechanism.

Although slim, this Bill is essential. Royal Assent is required before we can begin disbursing funds to Ukraine, and before we can receive any repayments from the profits being held in the European Union. It is therefore vital that we pass this Bill as quickly as possible, so we can begin disbursement this winter, as Ukraine’s needs are immediate. I hope that I can count on the support of the House to achieve this, and help us get this vital money into Ukraine’s hands as quickly as possible.

The $50 billion collectively delivered through the ERA lays down a marker to show that we will continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. Collectively, we will pursue every available means of making Russia pay for the damage it has done in Ukraine. I am proud to present the UK’s contribution to the scheme today, which will make an immediate tangible difference to Ukraine’s capacity to defend itself. This Bill facilitates that contribution, and I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.